Worse than I thought in Iowa

What I don't know is if this is typical of other Republican platforms in other states...

"There is no other country where a political party has attempted to make evolution a political issue," Miller says, noting that anti-evolutionary language has even been added to several state Republican Party platforms.

After sending our oldest to State School and finding after 6months he had learned to scribble & be a behaviour problem, it wouldn't concern me overmuch what a school taught about Origins, if only it ran a tight ship. (We just cop the "fine", and teach them ourselves now. We had to teach them at home anyway, so why bother sending them?)

If they would just give the money back to the parents, and allow freedom of private enterprise and freedom of choice, we would be impressed by the improvement in educational standards - and economic spinoffs.

Suggest the same approach re Origins. There is an Internet out there. Insist on the geologic record, point out the unrolling of life, and give people the credit of being able to do some original thinking.

Evolution never has and never should = Darwinism. That is origins illiteracy. There's too much of all sorts of illiteracy about.

After sending our oldest to State School and finding after 6months he had learned to scribble & be a behaviour problem,...

It is much worse than I, in my naivete, had imagined...

Next they will be insisting that the value of pi is exactly three...

On religious freedom, the party's platform tells that "the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion." It adds, "We do not support court ordered mandates that remove prayer from the public forum."

The oldest is now 22. In the Century previous to Darwin, John Wesley wrote, "There is a prodigious number of continued links between the most perfect man and the ape." Do we suppose he was Darwinist? Sir Richard Owen helped identify Darwin's specimens, but wrote off Darwinism (i.e.,full-on Darwinism)on the grounds that it did not explain the origin of species. He implied that he didn't yet know the mechanism. You do? Perhaps congratulations are the order of the day?

Evolution never has and never should = Darwinism

Several state Republican parties have pro-creationism sections of their platform. These states also have anti-separation sections as well.

The problem that state parties face is that their platforms are written by the most active parts of their supporters. In many states that means that the evangelicals get to write the Republican party platform. Texas being a prime example. The issues for the evangelicials is that although they write the platform, they often can't get candidates to follow it. It's a meaningless victory. About two years ago, the evangelicals in the Texas republican party tried to pass a bylaw that would require all canidates to support every part of the platform if they wanted state party money. This proposal barely failed; it was like 49% to 51%.

Theories of Origin --- We support the objective teaching and equal treatment of scientific strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories, including Intelligent Design. We believe theories of life origins and environmental theories should be taught as scientific theory not scientific law; that social studies and other curriculum should not be based on any one theory.

If they would just give the money back to the parents...

It's quite widely spread in Republican party platforms. Indeed, a few years ago, a group of Texas Republicans tried to pass a plank declaring that the GOP is not a church, and that its platform was not based on any religion. That motion failed.

Teaching creationism also used to be part of the NATIONAL Republican party platform. I don't know if it still is.

But then, these platforms mean essentially nothing. No candidate has to follow them, there are no penalties whatever for rejecting them, and most people don't pay the slightest attention to them (or even know what they say).

Platform planks like this one are nothing but harmless sops that are thrown to the foaming fundies to make sure they keep those checks coming.

I looked around on the Pennsylvania GOP site and didn't find a platform. Plenty about their history and the people but no platform. I wouldn't be surprised if they were treating ID like the plague about now.

Oklahoma Republican Party platform has had a plank for intelligent design in public school science courses for at least the past two years. This year the Democratic platform had a statement against creationism/ID. Oklahoma had four creationist/ID bills this year, more than any other state. All were killed in committee by the Democratic controlled Senate, except for a House resolution that did not get sent to committee and dies.

This was the sixth consecutive year that creationist bills (or textbook disclaimer in 2000 ruled unconstitutional by the Oklahoma Attorney General)were killed by the Democrats in the Legislature. Should the Republicans take control of both houses in this elections this year (not likely, Oklahoma will be in trouble!

... Republicans and conservatives are divided over intelligent design. Seven state Republican parties --- Alaska, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oregon and Texas --- have "anti-evolutionist" platform planks that support teaching creationism and/or intelligent design, according to the pro-evolution National Center for Science Education. But the national GOP platform does not mention it. In Pennsylvania, says party spokesman Josh Wilson, "there are Republicans on both sides" and it has never come up at a state committee meeting. ...

4. Where evolution is taught, intelligent design must be taught as well. The differences between fact and theory shall be included in instruction.

Newt Gingrich, in a recent interview in Discover magazine (subscription required), said that he personally accepted evolution, but leaned toward allowing "local control" or "community standards", or some such drivel. Maybe that will be the next shift in strategy.

2.4.3 Science curricula shall accommodate diverse theories of origins 2.4.4 U.S. History shall include a thorough mandatory study of the U.S. Constitution, and the inclusion of our religious heritage. Emphasis should be placed on teaching from original historical documents and quotes of historical figures, not just editorialized commentaries about those events or figures.

Next they will be insisting that the value of pi is exactly three...

The idea that pi is exactly three is a valid scientific theory and should be taught in mathematics classes alongside the theory of pi equalling approximately 3.14. Students should learn to critically analyze numbers and to evaluate weaknesses in geometry and arithmetic, especially as much of mathematics is ultimately a religious cult founded by Pythagoras. Pythagoras only developed his theorem because he had rejected God. Also, I read somewhere that Pythagoras had a deathbed conversion to evangelical protestantism. The system of base 10 is irreducibly complex, in that if you eliminate even one number the entire system will crash. This obviously means it is the product of an intelligent agent.

A past multiplication table is undeniable. A present multiplication table is undemonstrable.

3.4 We support the teaching of alternative theories on the origins of life including Darwinian Evolution, Creation Science or Intelligent Design, and that each should be given equal weight in presentation.

Seven state Republican parties --- Alaska, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oregon and Texas --- have "anti-evolutionist" platform planks that support teaching creationism and/or intelligent design, according to the pro-evolution National Center for Science Education.

— USA Today, citing NCSE,

D. We support giving Creation Science equal representation with other theories of the origin of life. If evolution is taught, it should be presented as only a theory.

Should the Republicans take control of both houses in this elections this year (not likely, Oklahoma will be in trouble!

There's too much of all sorts of illiteracy about.

Lesse, so that adds up to 2/3 of the time alloted to crankery.

— Nick

Theories of Origin --- We support the objective teaching and equal treatment of scientific strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories, including Intelligent Design. We believe theories of life origins and environmental theories should be taught as scientific theory not scientific law; that social studies and other curriculum should not be based on any one theory.

please don't tell us you are homeschooling your kids in biology?

Actually some of my children do read THE THUMB sometimes. They do it for the laughs.

Just part of The Republican War on Science.

Perhaps a serious question at this point isn't appropriate, but which SCIENCE exactly is it that these Republicans are warring against? I'm not American.
Are they warring, for example, against the "science" of the NCSE & ACLU, which I assume is approximately equal to the Australian Science Teachers' Association and the Australian Sceptics, who simply say Evolution = Darwinism = Science, nothing else. Thus they tear up the dictionary, the scientific credentials of almost every respected scientist who ever lived, and free speech in science to boot?

Do you suppose the Republican Party would have a policy of disenfranchising people such as Richard Owen, Georges Cuvier, or Lord Kelvin, from the halls of science? Of ignoring their advice, without considering that advice? Of ignoring glaring facts, such as the failure of ancient Man to leave enough trace fossils to indicate his presence here in any numbers for anything like the time-span proposed? Or ignoring the facts of the fossil record, which throws into question the idea of gradual change from one life-form to the next? Or for that matter, the observed fact that life is not just one great continuum of intergrading statistical concepts arbitrarily called species?

Tell us now - if someone comes along and says, Oi, Quantum Theory is showing us what happens at speciation, and it only partly aligns with Neo-Darwinism but it does advance Health and Genetics - who is most likely to embrace these new developments - the 'Publicans who are warring against science, or the "scientists" who claim they are being warred against? Shades of Galileo, in reverse? But I'm not au fait with the politics over there. I do acknowledge the difficulties posed by the YEC's, who will of course only increase their influence whilst substandard science is being foisted on people.

A Flock of Dodos played at the Denver Museum of natural history last night with Q and A with the filmmaker afterwards. The response was so great that it was moved to the big IMAX theater and still sold out. The movie is not about science at all. It is about communication of information that scientists seem uniquely ill suited to do leaving science education vulnerable to politically motivated inroads by better organized and funded institutions such as the Discovery Institute. One of the issues brought forth which gets entangled at PT over and over ad nauseum is that gratuitous attacks on religion where science is seen as the TRUTH that will release the shackles of superstition and ignorance is not a useful tactic. He asked the question of who will be the next communicator of the joy of evolutionary biology now that S. J. Gould is dead? Certainly not R. Dawkins who is the epitome of the divisive and strident scientist who, despite his intellect and clear ability to put ideas to paper, probably does more harm than good.

Except that Dawkins is right, and it's only the crazy Norteamericanos who think he's a problem. Science is anti-religion for much the same reason and much the same effect as it is anti-astrology.

Except that Dawkins is right, and it's only the crazy Norteamericanos who think he's a problem. Science is anti-religion for much the same reason and much the same effect as it is anti-astrology.

No, Dawkins is right. Religious nuts need to be taken by the scruff of the neck and shown the real world. Sure they'll howl at first, but playing patty cakes only emboldens them. Believe me, I know that from experience. It's high time for our species to grow up a little, and leave our infantile security blanket behind.

I don't think the Nebraska GOP has a 2006 platform, but certainly I've never heard any state GOP official or elected represenative mention the evolution/ID issue. It's a non issue here. The last person to make it an issue was a member of the State Board of Education from a rural district, and she was defeated electorally, and then moved to Virginia.

Empowering local school districts to determine how best to handle the teaching of creationism and the theory of evolution.

After sending our oldest to State School and finding after 6months he had learned to scribble & be a behaviour problem

Aaargh. For 'responsible', read 'responsibility'.

Perhaps a serious question at this point isn't appropriate, but which SCIENCE exactly is it that these Republicans are warring against?"

The Bush administration loves to talk about the virtues of "sound science," by which it usually means science that buttresses its own political agenda. But when some truly independent science comes along to threaten that agenda, the administration often ignores or minimizes it. The latest example involves the Environmental Protection Agency's decision to reject the recommendations of experts inside and outside the government who had urged a significant tightening of federal standards regulating the amount of soot in the air.

I also support Dawkins' and PZ's approach. It's not about stripping people of their religious views (like that's even possible). Hell, I have friends that are very religious. They just restrict it to their personal moral decisions, as is proper. However, the minute people start taking their faith-based (ie arbitrary) views and start acting like they actually have a bearing on what is true about the physical world, or more precisely, on what rest of us should consider true about the physical world, they need to be told in no uncertain terms how intellectually unreasonable that is. Dancing around the issue only gives them that much more confidence.

And let's get real, there is nothing anyone can say, no matter how deferential or polite, that is going to change the minds of 99% of fundamentalists. They are lost, casualties of the intellectual wars, if you will. The battle ground is over the children, and the middle-of-the-roaders, people who know little about ID, enjoy their church functions, and have a basic sense of fairness. They are the ones we need to persuade, by being politely, but unapologetically, scientists, in the truest sense of the word.

And they haven't passed a single bill for the IDers. None. Not a one. Why not? Because they don't WANT to.

i agree with telling creationists that their authority figures are outright lying about science if they claim a separate creation scenario or a young earth scenario ....i usually try to do it politely though .....i feel most americans are broght up to be no comment-ly polite about others religious beliefs ....creationism taught as science will cost lives ..it is time to take the gloves off ....im still polite about it but i do call it "pseudoscience nonsense like astrology" as soon as im asked

Take it from this European, he is the biggest problem.

3.4 We support the teaching of alternative theories on the origins of life including Darwinian Evolution, Creation Science or Intelligent Design, and that each should be given equal weight in presentation.

That Newt Gingrich interview is really pretty interesting for two reasons:
First, he says that ToE is good science and it should be taught but that local schoolboards should be able to decide their curricula. I think he has the first part of that right but the second part is really a good way for Newt to kick himself in the face with scientists and the scientifically minded.
Second, he really does a good job of distancing himself from much of the Republican "war on science" by talking about how we need to shift our cultural focus from awarding sports figures millions of dollars to awarding scientists with increased fortune and fame. If we do that, he seems to think, then we'll end up with more kids going into the sciences by playing to our sense of celebrity.
I like the second point very much and I think that the government should get on it. Right now it isn't happening at the level it should be. How'd we get to the moon? OH YEAH!!!! We made a space race.

And Mr. Heywood,
What are you talking about with:
"science" of the NCSE & ACLU, which I assume is approximately equal to the Australian Science Teachers' Association and the Australian Sceptics, who simply say Evolution = Darwinism = Science, nothing else. Thus they tear up the dictionary, the scientific credentials of almost every respected scientist who ever lived, and free speech in science to boot?
I'd like some kind of clarification. Where is the dictionary attacked by the ACLU and the NCSE in all of this? If you read Eugenie Scott's book, Evolution vs. Creationism you will see science really quite well defined with lots explanations and citations. I suppose that (even if you're an Aussie) that you are somehow offended and appalled at Judge Jones' ruling too because he quite correctly defined ID as non-science which both plaintiffs and defendants had asked him to do. So where is the dictionary problem in all of this?
Who are all these scientists whose credentials have been shredded? Stephen Jay Gould? Ken Miller? The NCSE's 500 scientists named Steve? Surely, they are all horrified by the Theory of Evolution and science as it's been defined for practical and legal purposes.
Free speech? Who isn't allowed to speak? You can talk as much as you like but that doesn't mean that scientists have to accept non-testable drivel that are dressed up rehashes of antiquated explanations from bronze age shepherds or early nineteenth century reverends. They don't have to publish it either and can rightly attack it as non-science. If they logically and coherently explain why such religious pseudoscience doesn't fit into what they do, then they should correctly keep it from being taught as such.
Science isn't fair. It is not a democracy or a representative republic. It is a meritocracy with some incredibly clear boundaries that keeps magical thinking out.

The Wedge document claimed that the ID scam artists were going to target legislators and school boards. Now, they have to get back in touch with these boobs and get them to drop ID so that it won't blow their replacement scam. The "teach the controversy" scam doesn't even mention that ID ever existed. These Republican legislators have to be clued into the new scam. They can't mention their religious motives and they can mention ID. They have to pretend that this is about the science or the next judge in the case will have an excuse to look up the ID scam and the Dover decision. Such a judge would find out that the same creationist scam artists that are running the controversy scam ran the bogus ID scam and they were stupid enough to get caught at it.

"which I assume is approximately equal to the Australian Science Teachers' Association and the Australian Sceptics, who simply say Evolution = Darwinism = Science, nothing else."

You really should not misrepresent organisations in this way. You are behaving like a creationist. As you are Australian, like me, may I suggest you read Robyn Williams's new book "Unintelligent Design: Why God isn't as smart as she thinks she is." Allen and Unwin 2006. Robyn Williams, as you will know, is the presenter of The Science Show on ABC radio and he is a highly respected science communicator. The Australian Skeptics have a website and a quarterly journal, "the skeptic", which I can recommend highly should you want to learn something. If you are attempting to educate your children, it might be worthwhile educating yourself to start with.

Actually some of my children do read THE THUMB sometimes. They do it for the laughs.

FWIW, the Washington State Republican Party platform doesn't mention evolution, creationism or ID in its education plank.

It's nice to see that they aren't bashing evolution, but fear not, non-fans of the Republicans, there's still plenty of other objectionable things to go around in there.

FWIW, the Washington State Republican Party platform doesn't mention evolution, creationism or ID in its education plank.

Yeah, but the last Republican candidate for governor, Dino Rossi, sure wasn't avoiding contact with IDiots....

First time comment - great site! Washington State Republican party platform says nothing about evolution or ID in its education section of the platform. Thank Goodness.

From the Texas Republican Party's 2006 Platform, page 20:

Theories of Origin --- We support the objective teaching and equal treatment of scientific strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories, including Intelligent Design. We believe theories of life origins and environmental theories should be taught as scientific theory not scientific law; that social studies and other curriculum should not be based on any one theory.

"Kansas students should be allowed and encouraged to fully discuss and critique all science-based theories for the origin of life in science curricula."

"Kansas students should be allowed and encouraged to fully discuss and critique all SCIENCE-BASED theories for the origin of life in science curricula." (emphasis mine)

Well, that doesn't sound too bad. As long as discussion is science based then that rules out ID/creationism. :-)

First, a disclaimer; I am an atheist Republican and think to introduce religious faith (in the form of YEC, ID, etc.) into a science classroom does disservice to both. Religion simply cannot withstand the same rational, evidence-based scrutiny that is the hallmark of good science. And, science is not about creating moral systems or assuaging what seems to be the natural human desire to "Make Sense Of It All". That is, beyond a purely systemic explanation of the hows and whys of existence, most humans have longed for a more anthropomorphic reason for being. This is not to say that religion is irrational; nor is it to say that some people - like myself - take comfort from the mechanistic view of the universe science provides. it is just that, the way to two cultural structures have evolved, they really shouldn't be mixed.

So, when my party tries to introduce "alternate theories" of the origins and development of life, the universe and everything (cheap and easy homages are my specialty) it is distressing. However, I do have to take exception with an implied criticism of Oregon GOP Platform by madhatter. In addition to citing this section;
"2.4.3 Science curricula shall accommodate diverse theories of origins"
madhatter also cites;
"2.4.4 U.S. History shall include a thorough mandatory study of the U.S. Constitution, and the inclusion of our religious heritage. Emphasis should be placed on teaching from original historical documents and quotes of historical figures, not just editorialized commentaries about those events or figures."

It is one thing to say that science and religion shouldn't be mixed, something I agree with. However, any coursework on US history would be incomplete if it failed to recognize the role religion has played in our Founding and our development as a Nation. Further, studying the primary documents of the Founding and the words of the Founders would seem to be appropriate, more so than some cursory condensation of the thoughts of the men and women who made this country into a few paragraphs in textbook.

There seems to be a tendency among some to view any recognition of the religion in the public schools as a threat. The problem with this view, however, is that it is as reactionary and anti-intellectual as those of people who want nothing but Bible studies in the classroom.

We shouldn't let our understandable concern over the intellectual cross-contamination that results from mixing science with religion lead us to conclude that religion is a topic to be avoided at best, feared at worst.

Madhatter, if I misinterpreted your inclusion of this section of the GOP platform, my apologies.

Platform planks like this one are nothing but harmless sops that are thrown to the foaming fundies to make sure they keep those checks coming.

— Lenny

Religious nuts need to be taken by the scruff of the neck and shown the real world.

Book says Bush just using christians.

U.S. History shall include a thorough mandatory study of the U.S. Constitution, and the inclusion of our religious heritage. Emphasis should be placed on teaching from original historical documents and quotes of historical figures, not just editorialized commentaries about those events or figures."

Lenny! Please do not insult pigs!

Religious nuts need to be taken by the scruff of the neck and shown the real world. Like the Kampucheans did, huh. Whenever I hear anyone say things like this, I reach for my gun.

Lenny! Please do not insult pigs!

The word EVOLUTION as employed by Darwin means, firstly, "an unrolling". That is the word Darwin employed. Most dictionaries retain that meaning. He himself said or implied that he didn't have all the answers as to how it happened. Thomas Huxley -Darwin's "Bulldog" - either said or implied that the Bible is THE book of Democracy and recommended that educational institutions draw from it.

Most respected scientists,from Galileo to Einstein & including palaeontologists/biologists such as Linnaeus, Cuvier & R. Owen, either did or demonstrably would have disagreed in some measure with the drift of Darwin's and T. Huxley's theory. Modern Evolution out-Darwins Darwin and out-Huxleys Huxley. Where would it stand with Galileo and the remainder of them?

It will be claimed that natural selection + survival of the fittest + mutations is the engine of evolutionary change, and is proven. This is how life was unrolled?

For one species to transmute to the next requires radical change in the hidden paraphenalia of the species and the way to achieve the requisite physical chemistry lies with quantum (subatomic) particles and effects, the most hopefull being light. Other electromagnetic radiation such as radio might also be a candidate, and it is certain that other factors such as magnetic field were involved. Light and other electromagnetic radiation come from sun & stars. Magnetic fields are a feature of stars and planets. They don't come from natural selection and survival of the fittest. Natural selection and survival of the fittest is not a mechanism. Species A was changed to species B by re-organization of its internal chemistry.
Natural selection and survival of the fittest had an influence upon proceedings. How? It could only have been via sophisticated information processing and retention capabilities built into the organism. This information was stored within the organism in such a way that it was incorporated into the organism's information command at transformation. Again, physical chemistry. Information system? Presumably "quantum". Quantum class information systems make conventional computers a bicycle with a flat tyre, compared to an F111.
They also could account for some of the weird and wonderful aspects of biology.

Perhaps it's time to do Darwin and Huxley a bit of service - leave alone all the Greats who cautioned them against jumping the gun.

Sorry, no law or principle of science when approached scientifically can be used for sectarian politico-religious ends. Especially for the end of getting people to become heathens.

Here is an abbreviated list of people/organizations whom I have on record as declining, usually repeatedly, to criticize, evaluate, consider, or in some instances to be paid to advertize, unscientific trash such as I have just written -leave alone other of my published materials such as appear on my site. Of course, AIG & co., and many but not all religious publishers. Australian Sceptics, Australian Science Teacher's Assoc., CSIRO's THE HELIX, R. Williams & the ABC's Science Division, NCSE, ACLU, and so on. The problem lies first and foremost here in Australia. The straight facts of the case are, as soon as people such as R. Williams (broadcaster & author) hear from me, they suddenly have to see a man about a dog. He's been seeing men about dogs for well-nigh 30yrs. Where do all these men with dogs come from?

Keep that up, and science will be a standing joke, not only in good old Aus.

[A]s soon as people such as R. Williams (broadcaster & author) hear from me, they suddenly have to see a man about a dog.

Sorry, no law or principle of science when approached scientifically can be used for sectarian politico-religious ends. Especially for the end of getting people to become heathens.

The straight facts of the case are, as soon as people such as R. Williams (broadcaster & author) hear from me, they suddenly have to see a man about a dog.

— PBH

Natural selection and survival of the fittest is not a mechanism.

Quantum class information systems make conventional computers a bicycle with a flat tyre, compared to an F111.

The word EVOLUTION as employed by Darwin means, firstly, "an unrolling". That is the word Darwin employed.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

For one species to transmute to the next requires radical change in the hidden paraphenalia of the species and the way to achieve the requisite physical chemistry lies with quantum (subatomic) particles and effects, the most hopefull being light.

Most respected scientists,from Galileo to Einstein & including palaeontologists/biologists such as Linnaeus, Cuvier & R. Owen, either did or demonstrably would have disagreed in some measure with the drift of Darwin's and T. Huxley's theory. Modern Evolution out-Darwins Darwin and out-Huxleys Huxley. Where would it stand with Galileo and the remainder of them?

The greatest strength of science is its ability to continue to learn. The greatest weakness is that science keeps changing its mind about stuff. But in this weakness lies a hidden strength: by combing through scientific history, it's often possible to find something some scientist somewhere once believed, that you find congenial. Then you get to call this a "scientific truth". Whether or not that scientist's belief had any relationship to evidence really doesn't matter. God becomes scientific if Newton believed in one.

Really quite fascinating to watch the religious mind try to come to grips with the scientific method and all it implies. Based on which direction any given religious mind bounces off, you can deduce the spin brought to the exercise.

Aureola Nominee, FCD said:

"Are these systems installed on board Sovereign-class starships, perhaps?"

I know it would be useful to point a few of them in Heywood's direction...

Re "that science keeps changing its mind about stuff."

Like the smallest particle going from atom to nucleus to proton/neutron to quark?

Or the number of known elements going up by one every few years? (I read number 118 just got discovered; maybe they won't retract the announcement later this time.)

Henry

Hmmm, maybe the lab that reported discover of element 118 six years ago should've hired a PR firm instead of retracting the claim after nobody else could reproduce the results...

For one species to transmute to the next requires radical change in the hidden paraphenalia of the species and the way to achieve the requisite physical chemistry lies with quantum (subatomic) particles and effects, the most hopefull being light.

— Phillip Bruce Heywood

The greatest weakness is that science keeps changing its mind about stuff

"The history of natural science is strewn with the corpses of intricately organized theories, each of which had, in its day, considerable evidence in it's favor"

No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

Don't shoot the pizza boy on the way in.

And I'm not even gonna get into the time that he loaned me his kayak.

Complete with water moccasin.

Lenny, later, "Dude, you're always complaining about no tips. Well, here's a tip: kayaks go in the water. Mocs like water. If you can't perform simple logical operations like that, maybe ya oughta work in a less competitive profession."

It's true--I haven't complained about tips nearly as much since he gave me that one.

You know, a couple of years ago I had a discussion with a creationist friend (a Hovind follower) and that was one of the points he made, i.e. that science kept changing it's mind !

I could wish he were as diligent about hanging out the "Loose Snakes In Living Room" sign, however.

I've been gone for a while but I want to address Zarquon's assertion that "science is anti-religion as much as it is anti-astrology." Science is and should be religion neutral. The majority of religious Americans support evolution-only teaching in science classes and feel no threat to their beliefs from this or any scientific theory. Astrology is pure pseudoscience and has no place in either contemporary Christianity or science although in Ptolemy's time it strongly influenced both. When Dawkins writes a book called "The God Delusion" and implies that religion is a symptom of mental illness I think he forfeits his place as the spokesperson for evolution education because somewhere around 88% of Americans will dislike him for this. Again the queston is who will step up to the plate for evolution education in the United States now that Steve Gould is dead? If the non-fundie-non athiest-not certain person is to be reached who will do this?

When Dawkins writes a book called "The God Delusion" and implies that religion is a symptom of mental illness I think he forfeits his place as the spokesperson for evolution education because somewhere around 88% of Americans will dislike him for this.

If the non-fundie-non athiest-not certain person is to be reached who will do this?

I could well be in error re Darwin utilizing the term, Evolution. If so, my corrector could be displaying a refreshing ability to do technical research and think for himself.

When Dawkins writes a book called "The God Delusion" and implies that religion is a symptom of mental illness I think he forfeits his place as the spokesperson for evolution education because somewhere around 88% of Americans will dislike him for this.

When Dawkins writes a book called "The God Delusion" and implies that religion is a symptom of mental illness I think he forfeits his place as the spokesperson for evolution education because somewhere around 88% of Americans will dislike him for this.

Dawkins may be going after the real source of the problem.

There will always be religious nuts. Get used to it.

As long as they don't have any political power, though, they are generally harmless.

Hey, Lenny & associates, who was Oliver Cromwell? Who set up the first English Commonwealth? Who first gave religious freedom to England in a big way? What was the meant by the term, "puritan"? And what are you doing with my rubber ducky? You know, someone once said to me, "Think twice before committing yourself in writing". Some commentators really should take pity on themselves.

Hey, Lenny & associates, who was Oliver Cromwell? Who set up the first English Commonwealth? Who first gave religious freedom to England in a big way?

— Philip Bruce Heywood

Hey, Lenny & associates, who was Oliver Cromwell?

He was a fundie nutter who died one of the most hated men in England.

If you're going to keep blithering, Heywood, at least try to blither about things you know something about.

Hey, Lenny & associates, who was Oliver Cromwell?

I know all about O.C. I did a thesis on "Underground Christmases in Shropshire, 16 whenever-it-was to 16 whenever-it-was." Examiner, the Reverend Doctor Flank. He still has a christmas pudding, from that era.
So who supports the idea of chopping off the ears of parliamentarians and banning Jews from living in England? Not to mention universal suffrage, the rights of man, ..... . They hated Cromwell so much - despite his restraining of Anton from going woopee on Christmas day - they tried to get his son to take over when he died. Some people should concentrate on important matters, such as luking privily with great cunning and then rushing upon the prey, and being Reverent Doctors Learneds, P.O. (pudding owner).

Wake me up when Heywood says something coherent.

Just ask, I'll send you a custard pie, to go with the pudding.

If only we could get PBH to be a guest on Tiswas...

So who supports the idea of chopping off the ears of parliamentarians and banning Jews from living in England? Not to mention universal suffrage, the rights of man,

— Philip Bruce Heywood

I could well be in error re Darwin utilizing the term, Evolution.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

If so, my corrector could be displaying a refreshing ability to do technical research and think for himself.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

Waal, this is a pretty patch of petunias. Come to think of it, for all I know, Einstein never used the term, Relativity. One should not jump to conclusions, noo noo. I stand corrected. So what did Darwin actually mean, have we all been misrepresenting the poor guy? DARWIN and EVOLUTION (an unrolling) seem to have gotten to be synonomous. It's too much for me. Tell us how speciation occurred, and then we'll all know.

If you have ever read J.K.Jerome's THREE MEN IN A BOAT, he has a charming diversion about Runnymede and Magna Charta Island. He sets up the history, describes the venerable piles, notes a herd of bison at the far end of the island being inspected by Anton Mates, and touches on the noble document, itself. ".. English yoemen's sons in homespun cloth, with dirk at belt,were waiting there to witness the writing of that stupendous page of history, the meaning whereof was to be translated to the common people some four hundred and odd years later by one, Oliver Cromwell, who had deeply studied it."
Anton, what were you coming at, wearing homespun cloth with a dirk at your belt?

This pie is going hard. Where's Lenny when you need the guy?

Hey Heywood, you're, uh, blithering again.

Yeesh. Heywood and Dembski both belong in a Home For The Unhinged.

The reason that Darwin did not use the term "evolution" was precisely because it meant "an unrolling". Darwin was comfortable with the idea that evolution never followed a preordained plan, and to my knowledge this idea is still held today. The word "evolution" meaning a preordained plan came from Charles Bonnet who devised a complex "Scala Naturae" to illustrate it. Bonnet believed from time to time God would come along and kick up the ladder all the worthy species, eliminate the unworthy and replenish the bottom rung through the process of spontaneous generation. Although Lamark also did not use the term "evolution", preferring "transmutation", much of Bonnet's ideas were incorporated into Lamark's theories. A theory where evolution follows a preordained course is usually referred today as "orthogenesis".

Although Lamark also did not use the term "evolution", preferring "transmutation",

IIRC, Darwin's preferred phrase was "descent with modification".

Ya know, that thing the fundies don't like.

Actually, we can now look it up at the new Darwin site. Supposedly 50% of all Darwins works are now there, to be completed by 2009 (Darwin's 200th birthday?). Includes new manuscripts that haven't been published before, and audio files:

http://darwin-online.org.uk/

Reporting continues to say that what the Michigan Board decided last week is that it IS ok to teach ID in Michigan, just so long as it is not in science classes. See
http://curricublog.wordpress.com/2006/10/19/spinal-mi-id/

Come to think of it, for all I know, Einstein never used the term, Relativity.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

One should not jump to conclusions, noo noo.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

I stand corrected.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

So what did Darwin actually mean, have we all been misrepresenting the poor guy?

— Philip Bruce Heywood

DARWIN and EVOLUTION (an unrolling) seem to have gotten to be synonomous.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

It's too much for me.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

Tell us how speciation occurred, and then we'll all know.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

Genetic differences accumulate between populations. As they do, the ability to interbreed decreases. Eventually, it becomes zero for any practical consideration and you have a new species. Not at all hard.

I'm not a biologist,

— Flint

but would it be more accurate to say that interbreeding between populations decreases for some reason or combination of reasons often hard to identify.

— Flint

And it's this reduction of interbreeding incidents that triggers a snowball effect - the less interbreeding, the more genetic isolation and variation. The more isolation and variation, the less interbreeding.

— Flint

Ultimately, there is essentially no interbreeding going on, and the populations are reproductively isolated. But as a matter of physiology, they still CAN interbreed, they just don't. After enough such bifurcations, the genetic distance becomes too great to interbreed between the most genetically distant twigs of the original branch.

— Flint

So the question always seems to be, just how much opportunity to interbreed do populations experience, and how often is such opportunity taken advantage of? My reading is that it's taxonomically convenient to declare separate species even if some interbreeding still happens naturally.

— Flint

Now, why this happens, what genetic differences might be involved, what non-genetic (socialized) differences might contribute, why these populations don't just breed right back together, I don't know. Would genetic differences follow, or precede, the initial breeding preferences? Maybe some of our biologists can help me out here?

— Flint

Re "Villain: Villain derives from the Latin word for "house" (compare "villa") [...]"

That's interesting. That wouldn't have occurred to me.

Henry

Flint,

Re "why these populations don't just breed right back together, I don't know. "

Well, I'm not a biologist either, but my guess would be that such populations do sometimes get back together. Whether that's a rare or a frequent occurence for such populations I have no idea.

Henry

If we got down to the nitty gritty, would you and I be villains? The world is full of imponderables. Does the word, horrible, come from the word, horror? If so, I doubt I have ever used it correctly. What does gross mean? Is it a dozen, or 20, or just something large, or what? Are we in danger of generating a sort of national remorse re the common language? I feel my state of knowledge approximates to zero, or could be in the negatives.

Even coming from less than zero, we need not be equivocal re the difference between animals that can, over prolonged time, under natural conditions, breed together or not breed together. (Even Darwin did talk about the origin of the SPECIES - I'm confident of that.) The difference is an empirical, measurable, ultimately observable, difference in the chemistry of each species. It is not time, chance, random mutations, nor yet a piece paper with "natural selection & survival of the fittest" written on it. It is different chemistry. And different chemistry is quantifiable. Sorry, Descent with Modification is not quantifiable, because there is no quantifiable species barrier between an offspring and the parent from which it descends. So it cannot produce different species in a quantifiable manner. Magic, wishfull thinking, Harry Potter, yes; quantity, no.

Since one or two of us display a bent for investigating matters of detail (in between doing rehearsals for congressional speeches or something of that order) perhaps we could go to the trouble of checking out the technical detail at my site. It only ends the Origins Controversy, and has been published for 5 years. It's at least as easy to view as Darwin's English. If anyone is going to be the person to set Science at rights, now, it's going to have to be YOU.

Please, pretty please, (Mr Suttkus, take note), don't anyone say that one species gives birth to another. I'm running out of jokes along the dogs-give-birth-to-cats line. THERE ARE SPECIES.

THERE ARE SPECIES.

It is different chemistry. And different chemistry is quantifiable. Sorry, Descent with Modification is not quantifiable, because there is no quantifiable species barrier between an offspring and the parent from which it descends.

I feel my state of knowledge approximates to zero, or could be in the negatives.

Actually, to be nit-picky, I'm pretty sure that "villain" is old French, meaning someone of low social standing that lives in a town, where town = "ville" in French. Villain is hence the urban counterpart to "paysan", meaning someone of low social status that lives in the country, derived from "pays", which means literally "country".... This was the origin of the word "peasant" in English...

My apologies for the very OT post :-)

Yes, I remember reading somewhere a word spelt something like villein, it was French.

I keep being told that species grade into each other but whilst not denying hybridization and the so-called "species problem", my eyes plus public opinion plus the written testimony of thousands of competent investigators constantly say otherwise. We can't overthrow the testimony of nature. Don't turn to the fossil record - it's full of species.

If we take to its logical conclusion the idea that incremental change which cannot be quantified causes speciation - that's not empirical. What is empirical, if we take that idea to heart, is that Hitler was dead right. I'm no advocate of "correct" or "do-good" policy and I can read geo-political maps and hear the horror stories from some parts of the world. All men are equal only in a sense. All men can aspire equally to becoming the full human being they were created to be. All men have equality in an ultimate sense before God. The hypothesis of incremental change is contrary to humanity, contrary to the fossil record, and contrary to empirical measurement. Needless to say,there is nothing sinister in the comment. We all had to believe it, to be Darwinists. That is slippery terrain.

The "observed speciation", if it was indeed observed under the rigorous parameters of open enquiry, and if it can be replicated amongst any sort of advanced life-forms, will, of course, provide necessary information. If you know of any information on what microbiological processes actually constitute a species barrier, kindly inform me. What we are searching for is the real difference between dogs and cats. We wish to know what it is that happens inside an organism to stop it, for time and eternity, from interbreeding with other "kinds". No, it's not just something that happens in the never-never.

We can't overthrow the testimony of nature. Don't turn to the fossil record - it's full of species.

If we take to its logical conclusion the idea that incremental change which cannot be quantified causes speciation

is that Hitler was dead right.

All men can aspire equally to becoming the full human being they were created to be. All men have equality in an ultimate sense before God. The hypothesis of incremental change is contrary to humanity, contrary to the fossil record, and contrary to empirical measurement.

If you know of any information on what microbiological processes actually constitute a species barrier, kindly inform me.

What we are searching for is the real difference between dogs and cats.

"I guess we are getting through, after all."

I doubt it. I think Lenny's right, it's pointless debating him. No matter how many times anyone explains how species change gradually, PBH will always bring it back to dogs and cats.

Heywood, why do you bother arguing your case here? Regardless of who's right or wrong (your wrong, btw) we aren't going to convince you, you aren't going to convince us. So why keep up the debate?

Uh, Darth, check the batteries on your irony meter.

;)

So why keep up the debate?

Consulting with the Oracle - even though he stole my rubber ducky and owns puddings - is advice I can second. We lesser tape-worms should defer to his wisdom & experience. My advice will be poor by comparison but I suggest Mr Robo take time out with an episode of STAR WARS. It could refresh the neurons. For the remainder, I would say, go around and join him. He's congenial enough. Watch him, though: he's a terror on the girls.

Terribly sorry (not) for talking Origins on TALKORIGINS. If the organizers have a problem with that, please advize. I tell you one place I won't be talking origins, that's at AIG; and I don't know if I'd last long with the other crews that are about, on that side of the fence. Strange world. The more people vociforously champion any sectarian view, be it atheism, or whatever; and act as though their religion entitles them to tear up empirical laws and procedures, the more they alienate the public. I'm interested in facts; likewise many of the viewers.

If we got down to the nitty gritty, would you and I be villains?

— Philip Bruce Heywood

The world is full of imponderables.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

Does the word, horrible, come from the word, horror?

— Philip Bruce Heywood

If so, I doubt I have ever used it correctly.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

What does gross mean? Is it a dozen, or 20, or just something large, or what?

— Philip Bruce Heywood

Are we in danger of generating a sort of national remorse re the common language?

— Philip Bruce Heywood

I feel my state of knowledge approximates to zero, or could be in the negatives.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

Even coming from less than zero, we need not be equivocal re the difference between animals that can, over prolonged time, under natural conditions, breed together or not breed together. (Even Darwin did talk about the origin of the SPECIES - I'm confident of that.)

— Philip Bruce Heywood

The difference is an empirical, measurable, ultimately observable, difference in the chemistry of each species.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

It is not time, chance, random mutations, nor yet a piece paper with "natural selection & survival of the fittest" written on it.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

It is different chemistry.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

And different chemistry is quantifiable.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

Sorry, Descent with Modification is not quantifiable, because there is no quantifiable species barrier between an offspring and the parent from which it descends.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

Please, pretty please, (Mr Suttkus, take note), don't anyone say that one species gives birth to another. I'm running out of jokes along the dogs-give-birth-to-cats line. THERE ARE SPECIES.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

Actually, to be nit-picky, I'm pretty sure that "villain" is old French, meaning someone of low social standing that lives in a town, where town = "ville" in French.

— demallien

I'm interested in facts

PBH:

"Watch him, though: he's a terror on the girls."

Pay no attention, ladies. I'm a nice boy! ;)

The world is full of imponderables.