Oregon teacher fired after veering from evolution textbook.

Someone should call the Kearny, NJ school board and clue them in.

Evolution has been linked to Planned Parenthood?

Ye Gods! Is there no end to the evil?

How long until the Thomas Moore Law Center for wayward fundies comes to the rescue? Let's hope soon, I'd love to see them humiliated in court again.

He was lying about the Holocaust; that alone should have got him fired.

Cue the "persecuted little lambs of God" reaction in five...four...

Helphinstine said he did not teach the idea that God created the world. "I never taught creationism," he said. "I know what it is, and I went out of my way not to teach it."

It's a bit of a crap article. It doesn't give any real indication of what the objectionable material was. Presumably we're talking Genesis and/or some teleological anthropocentric stuff, but it would be nice to know, given that it's the whole reason for the story in the first place.

Is this a new tactic of the IDationists - getting substitute teachers to do their dirty work?

Frankly, Ginger, I think the PowerPoint presentation they mentioned was sufficient.

I wonder when the ACLJ will get involved to defend Helphinstine's violation of the First Amendment. That's the whole point of their organization, after all.

"He was lying about the Holocaust; that alone should have got him fired"

Where did you read that?

Chris

I got it from the first paragraph:

...and gave a PowerPoint presentation that made links between evolution, Nazi Germany and Planned Parenthood.

The guy's a liar and a scapegoater, peddling the standard "blame evolution for everything we think is immoral" line.

Tukla,

What is the ACLJ? Did you mean ACLU or are you making some other reference?

Teachers rarely get fired for one instance of misconduct. I suspect that this wasn't the only time the teacher violated ethics or regulations.

It's true that the article is lacking in details of what he actually taught.

It's also true that the article is obviously written with a pro-creationist bias. Another little missing detail - he as a master's degree in "science". Google reveals that his master's is probably in "Science Education". This isn't the first creationist to literally get himself an education degree for the specific purpose of trying to lie to students about science.

My guess is that the details are probably more offensive than the glossed over summary.

At any rate, anyone who "draws a connection between evolution and Nazi Germany" or who uses Biblical references in a science class has massively crossed the line, unless otherwise indicated.

By the way, firing is hardly a harsh punishment. He spent eight days violating the civil rights of a classroom full of students. He's lucky not be be sued.

For the most part, news agencies have simply been reprinting the article posted here. I found a conservative spin on this one on a blog though:

http://sopebocks.blogspot.com/

The Sope-Bocks: First, I wonder if Mr. Harrison and Mr. Rahm would have had the same reaction if their children were being given references to homosexuality or pagan rituals. Somehow, I seriously doubt it. This story just goes to show the extreme bias against Christian values. It also shows the lengths some people will go to in order NOT to challenge the religion of evolution.
I applaud Mr. Helphinstine for pushing the students to think critically about what they are being indoctrinated with in public schools. His courage to challenge the system with the truth is admirable. Unfortunately, teaching anything other than extreme liberal thought will be a death-nail to your career in Oregon. Sad, but true.

Nevermind my previous comment, he was a part-time teacher.

he Sope-Bocks: First, I wonder if Mr. Harrison and Mr. Rahm would have had the same reaction if their children were being given references to homosexuality or pagan rituals. Somehow, I seriously doubt it. This story just goes to show the extreme bias against Christian values. It also shows the lengths some people will go to in order NOT to challenge the religion of evolution.

First, I wonder if Mr. Harrison and Mr. Rahm would have had the same reaction if their children were being given references to homosexuality or pagan rituals. Somehow, I seriously doubt it...

Here we see the phony-crybaby-victim mindset laid bare. Do they really believe there would be no adverse reaction to a substitute teacher trying to inject Pagan beliefs into a science class? Those "Christian" crybabies would be leading the charge against such a teacher, and they know it. Which is just one reason why Pagans don't even try to pull this kind of crap. We're too honest to pull such a scam, and too smart to think it would work.

"First, I wonder if Mr. Harrison and Mr. Rahm would have had the same reaction if their children were being given references to homosexuality or pagan rituals. Somehow, I seriously doubt it."

What a load of bull. Some people will say anything. Teaching lies about science to promote "paganism" (relax, Wiccans, I know you would never do it, I'm talking hypothetically) would certainly get a teacher fired even faster than teaching lies about science to promote "Christianity".

Overwhelmingly the most likely person to teach lies about science as a commentary on homosexuality would be, of course, a right wing ideologue posing as a "Christian" and promoting homophobia. However, if a well-meaning person distorted or lied about science in a misguided effort to argue against homophobia (which wouldn't really make sense, since there's no need to lie to do that...), that, too, would be a firing offense.

Any pro-science poster here would support the firing of any teacher who deliberately distorted science and tried to use the science class as a pulpit to violate the rights of captive students by pushing political or "religious" propaganda. No matter what the underlying nature of their beliefs.

It's no coincidence that authoritarian right wing ideologues are the ones who, in practice, are most likely to behave this way, but if a misguided person from some other movement did the same thing, they'd be equally wrong.

Chip, the ACLJ is the American Center for Justice and Liberty, a group founded on the bizarre notion that Christians are a persecuted majority in the US. The ACLU is their mortal enemy.

"Kris Helphinstine: he has a Master's Degree -- in Science!

(http://www.drscience.com/)

"Kris Helphinstine: he has a Master's Degree -- in Science!

(http://www.drscience.com/)

Here's an article from the local newspaper out there... basically to sum up he lifted text directly from AiG. And that most of the test on the material was apparently on ID and AiG materials.

Very interesting, Ben, thanks for the link.

Helphinstine defended his usage of source material from the "Answers in Genesis" Web site telling The Nugget that some of the information presented is "good scientific fact."

I'm just so proud to be from the Northwest now. I think I'm tearing up. I'm feeling veclempt. I'll give you a topic. Discuss: Literal Creationist critical thinking: Neither critical nor...

A quick google confirms that his Master of Science is in Science Education.

Oregon State commencement; June 2005, pg 24, Florence.

Me daughter was the victim of Helphinstine's "light"
On mermaids and unicorns it shines real bright.
On science's truth it shines not at all,
Casting instead its darkly pall.

Yo ho ho, he taught ID,
Leaving me daughter all at sea!

He said: "Genesis has it thus ---
Parrot these verses to get A+.
And, class, you'll grasp that what comes next
Ain't a part of the sec'lar text!"

Yo ho ho, he taught ID
Leaving me daughter all at sea.

Board to Helphinstine --- "Not so fast,
ID's vacuity's wide and vast!"
If ye can't teach science, teach not at all
And save young minds from y'er darkly pall.

Yo ho ho, he's off to sea!
And me daughter's no longer taught ID!

Me song has a lesson fer all to see ---
"Beware the pious and scienc-y!"
Therein are lies and impiety,
Believe them not if yer mind be free.

A quick google confirms that his Master of Science is in Science Education. Oregon State commencement; June 2005, pg 24, Florence.

Thanks again Ben; the Nugget has the better of the stories.

8 days! This guy really went for it. I wonder if he's ever had a science teaching job before this. Hopefully, this will be his last.
Anyway, this was so gross that I don't see how any lawyer could save his butt. I certainly hope this little district (1300 students) doesn't get stuck with expensive legal bills.

This "critical thinking" scam isn't new but I don't remember who started it. Does anyone recall? I was hoping someone on PT would have the answer.

I dropped off a comment at the Nugget and also sent a congratulatory e-mail to Superintendent Thonstad (thonstat@outlawnet.com). The little town of Sisters (1500) jumped on the problem and solved it the right way. They deserve some credit!

It's also true that the article is obviously written with a pro-creationist bias. Another little missing detail - he as a master's degree in "science". Google reveals that his master's is probably in "Science Education". This isn't the first creationist to literally get himself an education degree for the specific purpose of trying to lie to students about science.

PoxyHowzes adaptation (comment 166147) of the Keeper of the Eddystone Light is hilarious. I'll bet he does folk music.

Some more satirical songs of this genre might work better than a good outing of these ID creeps.

However, it would be bad enough if he managed a masters in science education from OSU. if so, my guess would be he entered the PhD program in science education, and they booted him as soon as it was clear what his "mission" really was, and thus he ended up with a masters (makes the university look better than simply booting him with nothing).

— Sir_Toejam

Remember how far Bryan Leonard got at a different OSU before someone blew the whistle?

good im glad this incompetant liar got fired

Here's an article from the local newspaper out there... basically to sum up he lifted text directly from AiG. And that most of the test on the material was apparently on ID and AiG materials.

"OK kids, since we in a school lets go over everything and see if you've remembered what you have been taught. Did dinosaurs become extinct 65 million years ago or did they live alongside humans on Noah's ark. Of course they lived alongside humans etc. etc."

Teaching critical thinking by distorting science??? That's not the most efficient way, I'd be tempted to say. Why not choose religion as a subject? It would be far better!

Tukla:

Minor correction: the initials ACLJ stand for the American Center for Law and Justice. My wife calls it the American Center for Legislating Jesus. If you go to their web site, it is designed to look just like the ACLU's. Around here, local radio and TV regularly broadcast their shows. Scary stuff.

8 days! This guy really went for it. I wonder if he's ever had a science teaching job before this. Hopefully, this will be his last.

A quick google confirms that his Master of Science is in Science Education. Oregon State commencement; June 2005, pg 24, Florence.

But don't underestimate the likelihood of the university either not knowing or not caring about his intentions. Remember how far Bryan Leonard got at a different OSU before someone blew the whistle?

Google also turns up a "Kris Helphinstine" who went to Pacific Lutheran University. Same guy, maybe?

Minor correction: the initials ACLJ stand for the American Center for Law and Justice. My wife calls it the American Center for Legislating Jesus. If you go to their web site, it is designed to look just like the ACLU's. Around here, local radio and TV regularly broadcast their shows. Scary stuff.

>>>OK kids, since we in a school lets go over everything and see if you've remembered what you have been taught. Did dinosaurs become extinct 65 million years ago or did they live alongside humans on Noah's ark. Of course they lived alongside humans etc. etc."

Sadly, most of the teenage kids were putting their hands up agreeing with Riddle. I'm sure this talk is somewhere in the AiG video on demand series. The thing is, in light of the story about the teacher being sacked, I always thought it was against the law in the US to teach YECism in any school. I do seem to recall that Riddle managed to gain access to a school biology lesson a couple of years ago<<<

I believe you saw part of the documentary "walking with Jesus" or "Friends of Jesus," something like that. It was created by Nancy Pelosi's daughter and showed a number of seminars similar to that one, in fact the language was identical in the show I saw but the kids were 4-8 ish)

Sir_Toejam mussed, "if so, my guess would be he entered the PhD program in science education, and they booted him as soon as it was clear what his "mission" really was, and thus he ended up with a masters (makes the university look better than simply booting him with nothing)."

Indeed. I know first hand. I once entered a PhD program at a university (remain unnamed) in California and it was not a fit for either of us (the U and myself) and we parted ways with me holding a consolation prize, a MS in science.
But not despair I soon entered another program at another U and obtained my PhD (this time it was a match made in heaven).

Not so fast! Not all of the community members are siding with the parents or school board on their decision. Don't assume that this is an open and shut case. MANY of us in this small community completely back the teacher. .

Heather Robirts --- That is most unfortunate.

"Throughout this family-friendly experience, guests will learn how to answer the attacks on the Bible's authority in geology, biology, anthropology, cosmology, etc., and they will discover how science actually confirms biblical history."

This "critical thinking" scam isn't new but I don't remember who started it. Does anyone recall? I was hoping someone on PT would have the answer.

I note the newspaper you link to (why a Texas one rather than a local btw?) has a link at the bottom of the page offering readers a chance to have free d'ls of - wait for it - Ann Coulter's weekly column. Gad. Second prize is no doubt her daily column.

And while we're talking about the tactics of proselytizing Xtians, here's an article in a recent Times (of London) about missionaries descending on a Cambodian village full of elderly Pol Pot villains.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article1533661.ece
Murky waters to fish in, but that's their métier. However, what I found revealing was this quote: 'Pastor Phannith said that many chose Christianity because they did not find forgiveness in Buddhism, which teaches that a soul must pay for its sins during lives to come.'
Sef-serving or what? Selfishness disguised as hope romps home, with faith and charity having fallen at the first fence. So much for the whole body of christian ethics.

Thanks Ron Okimoto,

I think though that "critical thinking" is a bit different gambit than "teach the controversy." At least it sounds different (maybe it's just TTC under a new name?)

It occurred to me that, like Barbara Forrest's ID "Trojan Horse", "critical thinking" and "teach the controversy" can look sane, benign, scientific, even educationally valuable, and deserving to be brought into a school. But, these are all "Trojan Horses": drag them into a school and what pops out is raw sewage--very toxic stuff. These folks have gone to great efforts to make the "barking mad" (from Dawkins) look healthy and rational.

Critical analysis is just the new name for "teach the controversy." They started using critical analysis after the first draft of the "teach the controversy" Ohio model lesson plan came out and had links to creationist web sites and dishonest junk straight out of Wells' Icons of Evolution propaganda book. The Ohio rubes blew that scam by linking it to creationism and intelligent design. The later drafts dropped out those "mistakes" and they changed the name to critical analysis lesson plan. The slogan used to be primarily "teach the controversy."

Dembski knew it back in 2001 when he claimed that the clarion call was to "teach the controversy" in an essay that was supposed to be about what the ID scam artists wanted to teach about intelligent design.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=604

The creationist junk and intent hasn't changed just the name of the scam.

Today's (3/21) Oregonian, the major news daily for the Portland metro area had an interestin front-page article about Helphinstine.

( http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1174447541172320.xml&coll=7 )

It contains some first-person quotes from the individuals involved, including a few from Helphinstine himself, who says....

"I thought, 'Hey, this is a great chance to get kids thinking' ".

Um yeah, maybe not all that much thinking about science, but, um thinking nonetheless.

On the other hand, in retrospect, he seems to admit that maybe "slides of Nazi death camps weren't appropriate for (his) freshman and sophomore students".

Me, personally, I've never quite made the connection between, say, rabid genocidal Nazis and and their death camps and, say, oh, Watson, Crick and an electron microscope but maybe that's because I didn't do enough "thinking" as a kid.

"It is my belief that Mr. Helphinstine challenged the students to look at all sides of the issue, and understand the source of each material that is presented and the underlying and inherent bias of all sources of information," Rudinsky said in an e-mail. "That is a good definition of thinking critically."

— Rudinsky (the single supporter on the board)

"Reality has a demonstrated liberal bias. Stephen Colbert

Dave

What is sad about this incident is that it gives critical thinking a bad name. This is a link to one of the largest (and best IMO) organizations promoting **real** critical thinking. Unfortunately, you have to cut and past into your browser since I can never get my html tags to work here.

http://www.criticalthinking.org/

I don't know any proponents of real critical thinking who would embrace the "teach the controversy" approach. If you are going to teach critical thinking about ID then you have start with relevant criteria for evaluation. ID and YEC fail any test of good critical thinking.

There is some thought that you can teach concepts through critical thinking (Paul and Elder advocate this). But if you were to design a lesson plan around that for evolution it would be along the lines of understanding concepts of gradualism, populations, etc. by comparing and contrasting punctuated equilibrium vs. phyletic gradualism. In doing so you would want to help students understand what the argument is (and is not) about. In the process of studying this argument and comparing different points of view students learn about scientific method, how to appraise different theories, how to apply concepts, etc.

Critical thinking does not start out by putting junk science on a par with good science.

Chip has a very useful point. It would be good for someone [Chip? NCSE? Nick in his spare time? :-)] to do some research and write up a summary of good high-school appropriate guidelines for teaching critical thinking. What does this really mean, what are various components of it, and what are some good exercises and lessons that could be used in high schools from a cross-curriculum perspective (that is, not just in respect to science but to all subjects, especially social studies and English.)

I notice that most comments in the local newspaper (the link that "Ben" gave) support the TEACHER, not the school board. Sounds like more science-oriented local people need to respond!

Re Stevaroni's post (#166305), shouldn't Watson & Crick be Watson, Crick, Wilkins & Franklin? (Admittedly it's more of a mouthful for what was essentially a throwaway line, but fair's fair.... I liked Stevaroni's comment though.)

Fortunately, this doesn't look like it's about to become another Kitzmiller. But there are always others out there. Here's one from Rogers School District in Arkansas:

http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/2007/03/22/news/032207rzevofolo.txt

[From Jack - acting as thread admin: I've deleted this comment. I will move it to the bathroom wall as soon as I can.

This comment was deliberately provocative spam, and there is no need to follow down the path that it leads.]

Pumpkinhead: thanx for an excellent parody of hillbilly creationism!

...our street corner evangelizing efforts still yield far more converts...

Especially among unemployed losers who have nothing better to do than loaf about on street-corners and listen to raving street-loonies.

...adults in universities who must subject themselves to further immersion in the Darwinian Styx in order to get a job above and beyond hamburger flipping.

As opposed to the creationists, who are, I presume, perfectly content to flip burgers and seethe with resentment at their more-educated customers who buy their burgers while taking breaks from their more challenging jobs?

FYI--

Jack the censor is lying. My thoughtful, coherent essay contained no spam. I advertised nothing nor did I post any links. (Hey Raging Bee, back me up on this!)

The above paragraph assumes Jack-the-Giant-Killer-in-his-mind actually knows what spam means as opposed to a word he uses for anything he doesn't like. Of course, Jack is probably a product of the Darwinian school system and hence is probably not the sharpest tack.

No backup from me, Punkie -- serious or not, your post was completely off-topic; and I shouldn't have wasted my time responding to it.

It wasn't "spam" so much as a "troll". In any case it added no substance to the comment thread.

Anyway, I'm personally of the opinion that an Introduction to Logic course would be more valuable to a high school than any specific science class: it would lay the foundation for scientific learning better than any class on sheer memorization of established facts.

[Comment deleted - I expect civil discussion on the threads that I start and moderate.]

"Time and time again, we have insisted that it is essential to understand that all evidence is interpreted on the basis of 'pre-suppositions.' As Christians, we must recognize that all of our thinking---in every area---should be built upon the history revealed in God's Word. By doing this, you then have the correct 'big picture' way of understanding the universe so that the evidence of the present can be interpreted correctly. Sadly, many Christians often succumb to the non-Christian's challenge to provide evidence for the existence of God, creation and the Christian faith, etc., without using the Bible. When you agree to these terms of the debate, however, then you are answering a person 'according to [i.e. within the terms of] his folly.' In other words, the Christian has accepted the non-Christian's presuppositions (that thinking is not to be built on the Bible), and thus, by default, he has only the non-Christian's way of thinking to interpret the evidence. Such a person cannot 'win' the argument because he has no true foundation (God's Word) on which to correctly (and differently) interpret the evidence. The Christian might try to use a different interpretation of the evidence (consistent with a Biblical foundation), but without acknowledging the foundation, the argument will likely fail."

— AiG

Ham encourages children to "always trust God" over the current mainstream explanation(s) for the origin of the universe when confronted with teachings that contradict a literal reading of the Bible. [2] "Boys and girls," Ham said. If a teacher so much as mentions evolution, or the Big Bang, or an era when dinosaurs ruled the Earth, "you put your hand up and you say, 'Excuse me, were you there?' Can you remember that?" The children roared their assent. "Sometimes people will answer, 'No, but you weren't there either,' " Ham told them. "Then you say, 'No, I wasn't, but I know someone who was, and I have his book about the history of the world.' " He waved his Bible in the air. "Who's the only one who's always been there?" Ham asked. "God!" the boys and girls shouted. "Who's the only one who knows everything?" "God!" "So who should you always trust, God or the scientists?" The children answered with a thundering: "God!"

— The above article

My son's grade 7 teacher is using J. Well's iconsofevolution webpage as a source for his class's evolution "debate". I actually like the teacher, and don't want him fired, but I HAVE to do something. Suggestions would be welcome...

Erin G,

Consciously decide what your priority is: your son's education--i.e. your son--or the teacher's job--the teacher. I know which one I'd pick and I'd never ever regret it; you shouldn't either. It's his fault if he loses his job--it's not your fault.

Darwin (read god) forbid that we should ever question his "science". To actually allow multiple sides of an issue to be presented is tantamount to heresy in such an informed community of descendants of the primeval slime. We must never allow the dark side to see the light of discussion. And I do have an M.S. degree in mathematics, a true science discipline.

drscience,
(Or should I just call you Doctor?)
Since you've got a 'true science' education and all, how about you share your knowledge with us about the scientific alternatives to Evilution?
Just open a thread at After the Bar Closes.
Or are you just a troll who's all mouth and no action.
Thanks in advance for running from an argument.
(grin)

drscience writes... God forbid that we should ever question his "science" To actually allow multiple sides of an issue to be presented is tantamount to heresy in such an informed community of descendants of the primeval slime.

Darwin (read god) forbid that we should ever question his "science".

— drscience

To actually allow multiple sides of an issue to be presented is tantamount to heresy in such an informed community of descendants of the primeval slime. We must never allow the dark side to see the light of discussion.

And I do have an M.S. degree in mathematics, a true science discipline.

Erin G,

Yes, Erin, you're in a difficult position. But consider . . . for how many years has the teacher been pulling this crap? Unless you (and preferably some other parents) speak up NOW, this teacher will coast merrily along on his mission and continue to pollute more minds.

You might go to http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/ to find more resources on "Icons of Evolution."

You could ask the teacher why he feels his own scientific training and insights are more valid than those of the mainstream scientific community.

If his response is that he's trying to teach critical thinking, ask him, why pick evolution? Does he teach all of the other science concepts in the same manner? If not, why not? If he answers in the affirmative, get evidence that he does so - lesson plans, assessments, etc.

If you don't see an immediate change in lesson plans from that teacher, go to the principal. Don't let the principal put you off with an "I'll get back to you later." Give him/her a deadline - say by the end of the working day. Next, to the superintendent. Then to the newspapers.

Record the conversations, too. Who knows what else this teacher is getting away with. Or maybe he's been duped by local creationists . . . either way, you owe it to your kids to fight back, and you'll give them a lesson in honesty and courage along the way.

"And I do have an M.S. degree in mathematics,"

Boy, that's convincing. I'm quite surprised - the creo's seem to be a little slow on the uptake here. I thought they'd show up much sooner.

drscience asserts And I do have an M.S. degree in mathematics, a true science discipline.

Mathematics is certainly a science in the broad sense of "systematic and formulated knowledge", but most people use "science" to refer only to the natural sciences. Since mathematics provides the language in which the natural sciences aspire to describe and analyse the universe, there is a natural link between mathematics and the natural sciences. emphasis mine

I find it amusing that I could get such vitriolic hatred from such an unlighted group. Several of you and you know who you are should consider changing your meds.

Cedric as any serious listener to NPR will tell you, "Dr Science knows more than you do."

Stevaroni said, "Science likes when you question the science." Science may like it but evolutionists such as you don't seem to be fond of the idea. Perhaps you could focus more on the idea of theory of evolution and less on the doctrine that evolution is unquestionably true.

Vyoma, as it turns out I do have the M.S. in math. You sound like a true thinker so drop the hate speech and think.

Hey Darth, for you to have had a thought is a true breakthrough. Keep up the good work. You should soon be potty trained.

And finally to J. Biggs who wrote, "Mathematics is certainly a science in the broad sense of 'systematic and formulated knowledge', but most people use 'science' to refer only to the natural sciences." There you have modern science at its best. How could science be anything but what MOST people think it is? You illustrate the contemporary high jacking of language by liberal secular thinking. To paraphrase Joseph Goebbels, "If you repeat something loud enough and long enough it will become the truth". I know that you have heard that before but hang on for a cerebral insight. My real quarrel is not with the theory of evolution it is with the high jacking of the term Science. Stick with the debate of theories; try your best to be honest with what science is and what is philosophy or religion. Why do you fear the debate?

You are now free to roam about the ever expanding universe that began from nothing and exploded by itself into something. A hypothesis verified by unquestionable scientific principle that can be repeated in the lab.

drscience said "I find it amusing blah, blah, blah..."
Then you are easily amused.
Are you going to open a thread and argue or is the good "Doctor" just going to keep on being predictably boring?
(insert even bigger grin here)

Wow, drscience, you went for the "poor picked-on me" act in a hurry. I read most of the responses to your tired, old, creationist drivel and didn't see much that qualified as "vitriolic hatred", but I guess if you want to claim victimhood, that's your business.

ANyway, I just wanted to respond to your last comment about recreating the big-bang in the lab...you do realize that it's not a requirement to re-create something in a lab environment to understand its scientific validity, right? We know a lot about the Sun, and can come up with a great number of ways to test our theories about how the Sun works without actually creating a Sun in the lab. That does not make our understanding of the Sun any less scientific. We can still envision experiments that test our understanding of the Sun...we can measure its effects on the universe around us. We have tested our understanding of the "Big Bang" event in a similar manner by observing matter's behavior in ever more powerful colliders and found that matter behaves as we expected it to as we reached energies close to those expected to have existed at the time of the event, we have measured energy signatures in the universe's background radiation that were predicted by the Big Bang Hypothesis. We don't have to create a universe in a laboratory to know that the theory best explains the universe as we observe it to be!

You question and discard all we have learned about the universe we live in, but you're ready to accept a creation story that has no more evidence than TWO conflicting stories in an old book and the word of some guys in funny collars asking for weekly hand-outs?

Nobody is coming into your church insisting that everything you know is wrong, yet you and your ilk see no problem with busting into every aspect of public and private lives to impose your beliefs on others...who's being persecuted again?

Many of you may have seen the news item about a science teacher in Oregon who was fired for supposedly teaching creation in a public school science classroom. I spoke to the teacher, Kris Helphinstine, on Thursday via telephone. Despite what some in the media have claimed, the facts are very different. Kris handed out two articles that were published by Answers in Genesis. In one (an article I wrote about Poodles and natural selection), Kris had removed all references to God and the Bible---but left my name on as author---that was a "mistake"! Once certain parents realized who Ken Ham was (CEO of AiG), that created a problem. Also, in the other article, he blacked out a sentence where God was mentioned---but left the name "Answers in Genesis" on the bottom---another "mistake"!

Kris was really just teaching the students about natural selection---trying to teach them to think. He also taught them about the connection between evolution and eugenics (which, by the way, is documented fact).

This really shows the state of things in American public schools when a teacher is fired, basically because he used materials that come from a creationist organization.

If you don't see an immediate change in lesson plans from that teacher, go to the principal. Don't let the principal put you off with an "I'll get back to you later." Give him/her a deadline - say by the end of the working day. Next, to the superintendent. Then to the newspapers.

Cedric as any serious listener to NPR will tell you, "Dr Science knows more than you do."

— drscience

I find it amusing that I could get such vitriolic hatred from such an unlighted group. Several of you and you know who you are should consider changing your meds.

There you have modern science at its best. How could science be anything but what MOST people think it is? You illustrate the contemporary high jacking of language by liberal secular thinking. To paraphrase Joseph Goebbels, "If you repeat something loud enough and long enough it will become the truth". I know that you have heard that before but hang on for a cerebral insight. My real quarrel is not with the theory of evolution it is with the high jacking of the term Science. Stick with the debate of theories; try your best to be honest with what science is and what is philosophy or religion. Why do you fear the debate?

Vyoma, as it turns out I do have the M.S. in math. You sound like a true thinker so drop the hate speech and think.

— drscience

Somebody suggested I compile a list or guidelines on critical thinking in K-12 science education (I think it was Jack Krebs).

It's a good idea but I won't take it on because 1) I have more than enough of my own work to do; 2) I am not a K-12 teacher and 3) I'm not even technically speaking a "scientist" (I am an economist with an interest in the application of evolutionary models to economic systems as well as epistemological debates).

But the best reason I can think of not to do it is because other people are already doing it.

Erin G. complained about a teacher's link to Wells' icons of evolution. My response to that would be "it depends on the whole context".

Was a counterlink to the web site that critiques Wells' book provided as well? How was this done? How much class time was devoted to this? What is the district policy on introducing additional material into the curriculum?

I find it amusing that I could get such vitriolic hatred from such an unlighted group...

How old are you, drscience? From your dirt-poor writing and spelling, I'm guessing junior high, although I wrote at a higher skill-level when I was in junior-high.

Does your mom know you're here? Would she approve of your antics, or would she be embarrassed?

Stick with the debate of theories; . . . Why do you fear the debate?

Hey, I was just thumbing through. I've been following the story in the news and the blogosphere. I should have checked pandasthumb.org as soon as the story broke. I posted on that Sope-Bocks blog, and I confirmed what I suspected. The blogger was unreasonable.

I wonder how many more years before the American populus (because this is primarily an American problem) wises up and stops sending their money to evangelist yahoos so we can spend time and energy on educating students in math and science. No wonder America is so far behind the rest of the world in math, science, and engineering.

I kind of want to go to that Creationist museum in Kentucky just to cause a scene. Who's with me?

Drscience said: And I do have an M.S. degree in mathematics, a true science discipline.

And I do have an M.S. degree in mathematics, a true science discipline.

— drscience

For what it's worth, I have a BS in Mathematics and a professional designation that is the equivalent of a masters in statistics. I also don't consider mathematics a science. Science is driven by verifiable experimentation. Mathematics is driven by logical proofs.

— MarkP

Did he go to Pacific Lutheran?

Pacific Lutheran teaches evolution to its biology and science education students: http://www.nsci.plu.edu/biol/
Yes, some twigs of Lutherans tend toward creationism, but the church itself is not officially behind creationism. Generally, creationists screw up their faith as much as they screw up their science.

If Helphinstine is a PLU grad, it only makes it more clear that he should have known better.

drscience said... (you evolutionists) must never allow the dark side to see the light of discussion. evolutionists such as you don't seem to be fond of the idea I could get such vitriolic hatred from such an unlighted group.

I'm with Stevaroni. Those that are sure that evolution is wrong need to dig in and offer their hypotheses and its support. Stevaroni has a good set of questions.

"Hey Darth, for you to have had a thought is a true breakthrough. Keep up the good work. You should soon be potty trained."

Ouch, now I'm hurt.

Okay, I'm over it. I consider myself agnostic, so I don't particularly care what people believe themselves. So just curious "dr science" (heh heh), while stevaroni's questions are valid, I'm just curious - is there any reason that you can't believe God AND evolution?

What's wrong with Planned Parenthood?
How is Planned Parenthood related to evolution?
How is either related to Nazi Germany?

My critical thinking skills indicate that this "teacher" was rather confused and disoriented.

"This story just goes to show the extreme bias against Christian values."
by dogmeat

What Christian values? The majority of Christian churches don't have a problem with evolution. Oh, you must mean your little sect of fundamentalists. OK.

So why should your sect be allowed to propagandize A BIOLOGY CLASS?

BTW, my Christian values don't look too kindly on lies either. Such as the assertion that Germany was taken over by a few biologists in the 1930s and who subsequently wreaked havoc on the world. Hitler was a painter!

MarkP wrote:

"For what it's worth, I have a BS in Mathematics and a professional designation that is the equivalent of a masters in statistics. I also don't consider mathematics a science. Science is driven by verifiable experimentation. Mathematics is driven by logical proofs."

Science is driven by observation, construction of theoretical frameworks and testing.

Experimentation is not a sine qua non aspect of sceince.

Re "construction of theoretical frameworks and testing."

Isn't that what "experimentation" means?

This really shows the state of things in American public schools when a teacher is fired, basically because he used materials that come from a creationist organization.

MarkP,

Re "Mathematics is driven by logical proofs."

A minor point, but when somebody is developing a new axiom system, some trial and error (i.e., experimentation) is involved in that. (Granted, it's not dependent on physical properties of matter like scientific experiments are.)

Henry

More from AiG:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2007/0327or-teacher.asp

This teacher had a valid point. Evolution is used as a justification for Naturalism, which is exactly what Nazi Germany embraced. Social Darwinism allowed for the extermination of an "inferior people," and the Final Solution was carried out, killing six million Jews.

What is disappointing is that any challenge to the theory of evolution is attacked with such vigor. The School Board erred. Evolution is far from fact, and rather than discussing the merits of evolution versus Intelligent Design they chose to silence the teacher. That is cowardly and intellectually dishonest.

Here's Helphinstine's presentation:

http://www.bendweekly.com/ppt/Eugenics-WEBPAGE_files/frame.htm

As you can see, it's strong on critical thinking, with no sensationalism or questionable associations;) See if you can understand why he was fired.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/35s39o

If that is his outline, there is no reason for him to have been fired. He reasoning was sound and his points are verifiable. I'm proud of him for doing such a great job.

On the other hand, I am ashamed that a school board would act so hastily and with such cowardice.

Those who fired him, and who have made sladerous remarks on this blog, need to examine his outline and exercise some critical thinking of their own. Maybe they will learn something!

Odd how there are no comments following the posting of what was actually taught, isn't it?
With an unbiased mind, reading the comments and reactions of "evolutionists" and "creationists" it is striking the level of emotionalism an danger that comes from......guess which side?

You guys are simple minded

What a pity that this happened so very long ago. It is January 2010 and I am only now reading this. I wonder if anyone is left in cyberspace to read my reaction? My thoughts are these; those of you who applaud the disciplinary action taken against this seemingly good and principled man are more dangerous to the concept of critical, free thinking than this fine teacher could ever be. How sad to think that you are so very frightened of the notion that evolution (still only a "theory") is a myth that you will stoop to the equivalent of Nazi book-burning from the early 20th century. Believing that life simply "happened" and evolved takes at least as much faith as believing in intelligent design. I fear for the future of education in this nation that was founded on the principle "IN GOD WE TRUST."

FFG: Please have the courtesy to check out just what the theory of evolution says and does not say, and what is written in the founding documents of your nation, before going to the trouble of posting here.

So, FFG, are we to assume that you applaud a man who would lie to his students and teach them bigotry in order to bring them closer to Jesus?

FFG said: What a pity that this happened so very long ago. It is January 2010 and I am only now reading this. I wonder if anyone is left in cyberspace to read my reaction? My thoughts are these; those of you who applaud the disciplinary action taken against this seemingly good and principled man are more dangerous to the concept of critical, free thinking than this fine teacher could ever be. How sad to think that you are so very frightened of the notion that evolution (still only a "theory") is a myth that you will stoop to the equivalent of Nazi book-burning from the early 20th century. Believing that life simply "happened" and evolved takes at least as much faith as believing in intelligent design. I fear for the future of education in this nation that was founded on the principle "IN GOD WE TRUST."

Mark wrote:

"On the other hand, I am ashamed that a school board would act so hastily and with such cowardice."

Yea right. The board acted hastily after letting this guy break the law and abuse students for over twenty years. They acted hastily after letting this guy preach his own brand of quackery in place of science for twenty years. They acted hastily after repeatedly telling him that his behavior was illegal and immoral. They acted hastily by taking years to fire the guy and wasting years and millions of dollars on lawyer fees and court costs.

The guy broke the law by teaching creationism in science class, something he knew very well was illegal. How many students have to be branded before someone steps in to stop this religious fanatic? How many students have to be cheated out of the education their parents paid for with their tax dollars? What do you want them to do, wait until he starts making blood sacrifices of virgins on full moons? Wake up and smell the crap man.

I am glad to see that someone is still out there to keep this debate going. Nearly all of the great physicists through time have been men of faith, including Galileo, Newton and Einstein. They opted to merge science with the notion of a Creator that brings order and discipline to the universe. Science and God, despite your contentions to the contrary, are not mutually exclusive. If your argument has to do with the separation of church and state, that concept is in the constitution to prevent the government from ever instituting a national religion. It has nothing to do with the classroom. As far as 1954 is concerned, I imagine that you are referring to the addition of the words “under God” to our national Pledge of Allegiance which occurred in that year. Further, the two-cent coin of 1864 was the first circulating US coin to bear the phrase “In God We Trust.” The least you could do is research your facts before you begin insulting someone of a differing opinion. Can anyone explain to me the left-wing need to insult people rather than simply discussing facts? Is it a reaction to fear and ignorance? Is it paranoia? If I am "stupid" it's for thinking that I might be able to have a mind-expanding discussion with people who are happy to believe that they haphazardly evolved from goo.

We call you "stupid" because you are proudly ignorant of basic facts, as well as the fact that you applaud a man who tried to teach his students lies and bigotry in the name of Jesus Christ.

Furthermore, Galileo was persecuted because his statements contradicted a literal reading of the Bible.

That, and your concern-trolling, comparing us to Nazis, mentioning of "haphazard evolution from goo," and your mention of "left wing"s strongly suggest that you have neither the intention of starting a "mind-expanding discussion," nor the ability to recognize a "mind-expanding discussion" if it flew up to you and laid a thousand eggs in your nostril.

In other words, we are reacting to your fear, ignorance, and paranoia, FFG.

FFG wrote:

"If your argument has to do with the separation of church and state, that concept is in the constitution to prevent the government from ever instituting a national religion. It has nothing to do with the classroom."

Sorry, the United States Supreme Court disagrees with you. Unless of course you can explain how using tax payer money to have deranged religious fanatics preach to you instead of teaching you science as their contract specifies is somehow not an example of the government supporting a specific religion. Maybe you would like for your government to pay for your children to be taught religion by Buddists, Hindus or Muslims in science class instead?

FFG said: I am glad to see that someone is still out there to keep this debate going. Nearly all of the great physicists through time have been men of faith, including Galileo, Newton and Einstein. They opted to merge science with the notion of a Creator that brings order and discipline to the universe.

Science and God, despite your contentions to the contrary, are not mutually exclusive.

Can anyone explain to me the left-wing need to insult people rather than simply discussing facts?

If I am "stupid" it's for thinking that I might be able to have a mind-expanding discussion with people who are happy to believe that they haphazardly evolved from goo.

Wow. If you look to this discussion in its entirety (2007) you will note that I am not the one who brought Nazi Germany into the discussion. I simply referred to Nazi book burning as a metaphor to excluding the Bible and other religious texts from the discussion. What "basic facts" am I ignorant to? As I pointed out, it was one of your ilk that was ignorant to the specific dates and events pertaining to God and our national identity. I am not the one who began slinging insults like "stupid." Again, it's always the "left" that resorts to name-calling when the facts become uncomfortable. That said, I welcome your education on any facts I may be ignorant to. Please enlighten us all.

At what point did I say that the "god" of Enstein was the Christian God? Settle down, guys. Yes, Einstein was Jewish. Jews believe in creation. Many religions believe in creation. I'll even go so far as to say that creation and the THEORY of evolution (you stil cannot show any evidence of it being anything but a theory) may not be mutually exclusive ideas. All I am saying is that faith is necessary to believe in either concept so why not make both available in a classroom discussion? I submit that it's fear and fear alone that keeps creationism/intelligent design out of mainstream education.

FFG, you did bring Nazi Germany into the discussion, and you did it first, when you accused people here of burning books, like the Nazis. That's a blatant, vicious insult, which, like all insults, is also a lie. Therefore, when you say you didn't bring in Nazi Germany, and that you didn't sling insults, you lie.

As to your ignorance, you are ignorant of the fact that the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States states that the Congress may not establish any religion, and that the US Supreme Court has consistently held throughout its history that this necessarily implies that the Government of the Union, and those of the various States, may not use taxes to support any - note that, any - program that has as its main or most important effect to support or to suppress any religious doctrine. Teaching creationism in the schools does just exactly that, and it is therefore prohibited.

You also betray your ignorance when you assert that God - any god - "pertains" to your national identity, whatever you mean by that. The United States does not pertain to God, nor to any religion whatsoever, as its Constitution states plainly, and as its history makes clear.

But more than that, the United States is a construction by human beings. To say that its identity, acts, policies, government, territory, history, politics, or any other aspect whatsoever of the United States, the nation, "pertains" to God, or He to it, is gross hubris, and transparently, palpably false; and if that foolish notion were acted upon, it would be the sure and certain recipe for boundless disaster.

FFG,

You may begin back peddling and denial now. Unless of course you want to retract your completely defenseless claims. You can also keep asking what is wrong about teaching creationism in science classrooms all you want, but unless you address the issues I raised no one will be fooled. Mutual exclusivity is not the issue. Faith is not the issue. The constitution of the United States is the issue. Deal with it.

Are you unable to read? Look back at the very beginning of this blog discussion in 2007, long before my entrance into the conversation yesterday, and you will see that the word Nazi is mentioned more than once. I then used it as a metaphore for book burning, not as an assertion that any of you are Nazis. This is precisely the paranoia to which I refer. Frankly, it's not important to the discussion so I'll move on.

It is simply MY opinion that both TOE and ID be taught. I am fully aware of what the Supreme Court has decided. I also know what the framers of our constitution intended and it had nothing to do with teaching TOE or ID. It had everything to do with religious freedom and escaping the tyranny of England. As I'm sure you know, TOE was not even in existence at the time our Constitution was written.

As far as national identity is concerned, you have to be living in a vacuum if you cannot understand that this nation was founded on the principles of Judeo/Christian philosophy. To deny that this is a Christian nation is the epitomy of ignorance. However, I simply pointed out to another blogger his/her error on the dates in which various language pertaining to God was incorporated into our national culture, eg the Pledge of Allegiance and our coinage and paper money.

Lastly, you have made an excellent point regarding faith. You "believe" that this great nation has nothing to do with God. I, and many like me, "believe" this to be a nation blessed by God. We both have faith in something, don't we?

I completely disagree. This blog is all about vitirol and anger toward anyone who quesitons the validity of TOE and is in favor of teaching ID. You can deny that all you wish, but it's plain to see that the majority of you on this site are fearful of anything that calls into questions your "faith" in TOE.

And yes, FFG, you are a malicious idiot if you delude yourself into trying to make a point with making the "it's only a theory" fallacy, especially since you're using it on people who are keenly aware of the difference between "theory" and "hypothesis"

And you again betray your ignorance when you parrot the "only a theory" line, just as you betray your unreason when you say that "many religions believe in creation", as if that had any relevance to a science course. The beliefs of any religion or religions are beliefs. They are not evidence.

For your information, in science, the word "theory" means "a detailed explanation well-supported by copious, reliably repeatable evidence for a natural phenomenon or group of related phenomena". It does not mean a hunch, guess, conjecture or hypothesis. The Theory of Evolution is the only explanation for the diversity of the species that meets that description. It is therefore the only accepted scientific theory, and thus the only one taught in science classes.

The only faith required to accept the Theory of Evolution is the belief that our senses accurately report reality, and our minds are capable of processing it. That's all.

Of course one may believe both that God created all things, and that the Theory of Evolution describes His methods in creating the species. This is called "theistic evolution". There is nothing new in it.

I admit that militant atheists decry such an accommodation, but most here would not. Science, as such, is silent on the idea, because it is silent on all ideas that cannot be tested against evidence. Which brings us full circle - back to the evidence.

FFG said: It is simply MY opinion that both TOE and ID be taught. I am fully aware of what the Supreme Court has decided.

I also know what the framers of our constitution intended and it had nothing to do with teaching TOE or ID. It had everything to do with religious freedom and escaping the tyranny of England. As I'm sure you know, TOE was not even in existence at the time our Constitution was written.

As far as national identity is concerned, you have to be living in a vacuum if you cannot understand that this nation was founded on the principles of Judeo/Christian philosophy. To deny that this is a Christian nation is the epitomy of ignorance.

However, I simply pointed out to another blogger his/her error on the dates in which various language pertaining to God was incorporated into our national culture, eg the Pledge of Allegiance and our coinage and paper money.

Lastly, you have made an excellent point regarding faith. You "believe" that this great nation has nothing to do with God. I, and many like me, "believe" this to be a nation blessed by God. We both have faith in something, don't we?

There you go with the insults again. I find it sad that you are unable to discuss this with anything but anger and annymosity. You just keep looking for that missing link and evidence of one species evolving into another completely different species and when you find it, let me know. Until then, I'll continue to believe that an intelligent being created us all, even someone as pernicious as you.

Check the dates on when "under God" was added to the Pledge and when "In God We Trust" was added to our money and you'll see that they were 1954 and 1864 respectively. I'm beginning to think I'm talking with college students with a point to prove and a stick up their asses. This is pointless.

FFG said: Are you unable to read? Look back at the very beginning of this blog discussion in 2007, long before my entrance into the conversation yesterday, and you will see that the word Nazi is mentioned more than once. I then used it as a metaphore for book burning, not as an assertion that any of you are Nazis. This is precisely the paranoia to which I refer. Frankly, it's not important to the discussion so I'll move on.

You're right. I came to pick a fight. I guess the Nazis didn't burn any books, and I'm stupid, ignorant and slanderous for making the assertion. By the way; how's the weather in Iran today?

The United States of America was not founded on any religion, or on any religious principle, practice or precept whatsoever. The sources for its founding ideas - not that they were invariably followed - are more to be found in European humanism and the philosophy of Hobbes and Locke than in anything religious. Most of its founders were not strong Christians and it is clear that some weren't Christians at all.

If there is any principle that underlies the founding of the United States it is that there was a natural separation between the interests of Americans and Britons, and that Americans were best fitted to decide on, and to follow, their own interests. Nothing more is necessary, or evident.

Have you ever read the ten commandments? You have to be joking? What liberal whacko did you study American History under?

FFG said: There you go with the insults again. I find it sad that you are unable to discuss this with anything but anger and annymosity. You just keep looking for that missing link and evidence of one species evolving into another completely different species and when you find it, let me know. Until then, I'll continue to believe that an intelligent being created us all, even someone as pernicious as you.

Anyone who thinks that the Ten Commandments have got anything to do with the founding, or general history, of the United States, has no business calling anyone a whacko.

FFG said: You're right. I came to pick a fight. I guess the Nazis didn't burn any books, and I'm stupid, ignorant and slanderous for making the assertion. By the way; how's the weather in Iran today?

Dave Luckett said: Anyone who thinks that the Ten Commandments have got anything to do with the founding, or general history, of the United States, has no business calling anyone a whacko.

FFG wrote:

"It is simply MY opinion that both TOE and ID be taught. I am fully aware of what the Supreme Court has decided. I also know what the framers of our constitution intended and it had nothing to do with teaching TOE or ID. It had everything to do with religious freedom and escaping the tyranny of England. As I’m sure you know, TOE was not even in existence at the time our Constitution was written."

Your opinion is irrelevant. And if you think that it is somehow relevant, then my opinion is that your are completely wrong. Your interpretation matters not one bit. The Supreme Court decides, not you.

Other than claiming that you know the intent of the writers of the Constitution better than anyone else, do you have any good reason for rejecting the decision of the court? Do you have any good reason for teaching pseudoscience nonsense in science class?

Do you think that astrology should be taught in astronomy class? What do you think should happen to people who do that? What if they branded their student with the signs of the zodiac?

DS said: Other than claiming that you know the intent of the writers of the Constitution better than anyone else, do you have any good reason for rejecting the decision of the court? Do you have any good reason for teaching pseudoscience nonsense in science class?

FFG said: There you go with the insults again. I find it sad that you are unable to discuss this with anything but anger and annymosity. You just keep looking for that missing link and evidence of one species evolving into another completely different species and when you find it, let me know. Until then, I'll continue to believe that an intelligent being created us all, even someone as pernicious as you.

So explain to us why Intelligent Design, which has been repeatedly demonstrated to be a fallacy-filled pseudoscience, and was never intended to be a science in the first place, should taught in a science classroom?

FFG said: It is simply MY opinion that both TOE and ID be taught. I am fully aware of what the Supreme Court has decided.

Who's the moron that wrote "because he was told that it would make Jesus so happy, duh."? You guys are pathetic. I know you'd like me to "get lost" but at this point I'm having way too much fun stooping to your level of ignorance and writing pathetic nonsensical drivel. I just have one question for you all. Assuming TOE is real and the only answer, where did the original matter come from? Don't say the Big Bang because it had to have originated from somewhere. Don't go "Hawking" on me either with some nonsense about parallel universes. Just tell me where the matter came from.

And for the "Jesus" guy; grow up.

FFG said: I simply referred to Nazi book burning as a metaphor to excluding the Bible and other religious texts from the discussion. What "basic facts" am I ignorant to?

FFG said: I'll even go so far as to say that creation and the THEORY of evolution (you stil cannot show any evidence of it being anything but a theory) may not be mutually exclusive ideas.

Show me evidence that ID has been demonstrated to be fallacy-filled pseudoscience. That sounds like a made-up term to describe something that small-minded people cannot understand.

FFG said: I just have one question for you all. Assuming TOE is real and the only answer, where did the original matter come from? Don't say the Big Bang because it had to have originated from somewhere. Don't go "Hawking" on me either with some nonsense about parallel universes. Just tell me where the matter came from.

Here's the definition of theory:
a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of ...
hypothesis: a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was ...
a belief that can guide behavior; "the architect has a theory that more is less"; "they killed him on the theory that dead men tell no tales"

I don't think I'm stretching too far when I again say that TOE is unproven. It's a theory. It may be a very good theory, but it's still just a theory. Unlike the law of gravity, it's unproven. Gee, sounds like ID, doesn't it?

Are you all rocket scientists or are you just the smartest people on the web?

FFG said: Show me evidence that ID has been demonstrated to be fallacy-filled pseudoscience. That sounds like a made-up term to describe something that small-minded people cannot understand.

FFG said: Show me evidence that ID has been demonstrated to be fallacy-filled pseudoscience. That sounds like a made-up term to describe something that small-minded people cannot understand.

FFG said: I don't think I'm stretching too far when I again say that TOE is unproven. It's a theory. It may be a very good theory, but it's still just a theory. Unlike the law of gravity, it's unproven.

Gee, sounds like ID, doesn't it?

Are you all rocket scientists or are you just the smartest people on the web?

I'll say it this way. Classrooms are meant for the expansion of thought and learning. What purpose is served by eliminating one possible explanation for the origination of life and the universe for the advancement of another when neither can be proven absolutely? I contend that both "theories" should be presented and the student allowed to make up his or her own mind on which seems the most plausible.

FFG said: I don't think I'm stretching too far when I again say that TOE is unproven. It's a theory. It may be a very good theory, but it's still just a theory. Unlike the law of gravity, it's unproven.

FFG said: I just have one question for you all. Assuming TOE is real and the only answer, where did the original matter come from? Don't say the Big Bang because it had to have originated from somewhere.

And for the "Jesus" guy; grow up.

FFG said: I'll say it this way. Classrooms are meant for the expansion of thought and learning. What purpose is served by eliminating one possible explanation for the origination of life and the universe for the advancement of another when neither can be proven absolutely? I contend that both "theories" should be presented and the student allowed to make up his or her own mind on which seems the most plausible.

FFG said: I'll say it this way. Classrooms are meant for the expansion of thought and learning. What purpose is served by eliminating one possible explanation for the origination of life and the universe for the advancement of another when neither can be proven absolutely? I contend that both "theories" should be presented and the student allowed to make up his or her own mind on which seems the most plausible.

I'll ask you again; what evidence is there anywhere that onc species or genus has evolved into something else? You cannot answer the question because it simply does not exist. A cat is a cat is a cat is a feline. Perod. Cats may have adapted within their species over time, but they are still cats.

General Relativity? Was he a war hero?

FFG said: I'll ask you again; what evidence is there anywhere that onc species or genus has evolved into something else? You cannot answer the question because it simply does not exist. A cat is a cat is a cat is a feline. Perod. Cats may have adapted within their species over time, but they are still cats.

I suspect it's because FFG (who shows a truly remarkable ignorance of science and logic and common sense) is a religious fool. I could be wrong...

But I doubt it.

FFG said: I'll ask you again; what evidence is there anywhere that onc species or genus has evolved into something else? You cannot answer the question because it simply does not exist. A cat is a cat is a cat is a feline. Perod. Cats may have adapted within their species over time, but they are still cats.

FGG wrote:

"I’ll ask you again; what evidence is there anywhere that onc species or genus has evolved into something else? You cannot answer the question because it simply does not exist. A cat is a cat is a cat is a feline. Perod. Cats may have adapted within their species over time, but they are still cats."

The nested hierarchy of genetic similarity seen between all living organisms is extremely strong evidence that the diversity of life evolved through descent with modification. Unless of course you have a better explanation. Please note that "common design" does not explain this pattern. Also please note that this pattern is completely consistent with all of the paleontology and developmental data.

Now FGG, you have complained repeatedly about insults here. Just how would you describe someone who is apparently completely ignorant of the last two hundred years of research accusing scientists of believing in a theory that has no evidence to support it? Now that my friend is insulting.

FFG said: General Relativity? Was he a war hero?

FFG said: I'll ask you again; what evidence is there anywhere that onc species or genus has evolved into something else? You cannot answer the question because it simply does not exist. A cat is a cat is a cat is a feline. Perod. Cats may have adapted within their species over time, but they are still cats.

It is simply MY opinion that both TOE and ID be taught.

got a lesson plan in mind?

How on earth do you explain something as vacuous as ID to a student?

it predicts nothing testable, it predicts everything, it won't define how a putative designer operates, but insists it's obvious one is operating.

it's nothing but nonsequitors, projection, and vacuity rolled into a big wad of wishful thinking.

so, do please tell us, Mr. Science advocate, how you would go about teaching how ID helps us explain and predict what we see in the natural world, like the current theory of evolution actually does do.

go on.

no?

that should tell you something.

...but don't be discouraged, NONE of the "supporters" of ID have ever even tried to prepare a logical lesson plan. Ya see, they simply can't, because there's simply nothing... there...

it's also why no ID supporter has ever run an actual field experiment to test any design theory.

it's impossible without specifying first how a designer actually operates to manipulate what we see to begin with.

example: how would YOU, moron that you are, figure out if a dam on a river was designed by humans... or a beaver.

how would you go about determining the source of an assumed stone arrowhead you find in a stream?

the reason ID isn't taught is that there is NOTHING to teach!

sorry, but saying the reason the sky is blue is because magical sky pixies want it that way is hardly a scientific theory, and has not only no explanatory power, but no predictive power either.

go beg the lords of ID to have an interview with their putative designer(s) to specify how such a designer actually works, and then you can formulate a testable theory about whether any specific organism (or part thereof?) has been "designed".

till then, stfu and stop trying to ruin education because you like magical fairies.

FGG,

Why do cats share all the characteristics of all other mammals but very few of the characteristics of insects? Why do cats share none of the distinguishing characteristics of birds? Why are cats more genetically similar to bats than fish? WHy do cats share basic developmental mechanisms with other mammals and not with worms? Why do cats have same mitochondrial gene order as all other vertebrates? Why are cats absent form the fossil record until after fish, reptiles and amphibians have appeared?

BY the way, "cats" covers a lot of ground. Lions, tigers, cheetahs, leopards, etc. are all cats. Are they all one kind? Were they all created separately? Why are their hemoglobin genes so similar if they were created separately? Does god want us to think that they evolved?

what evidence is there anywhere that onc species or genus has evolved into something else?

Cats may have adapted within their species over time, but they are still cats.

The General Relativity thing was a tip-off. He's just a troll, probably a Poe, and not very good at it.

Just once I'd like an INTELLIGENT ID advocate to argue with. But that's an oxymoron.

Rilke's granddaughter said: The General Relativity thing was a tip-off. He's just a troll, probably a Poe, and not very good at it. Just once I'd like an INTELLIGENT ID advocate to argue with. But that's an oxymoron.

I'm watching the Cowboys get their asses kicked by Minnesota. I'll catch up a little later. I don't know about you but I'm actually enjoying this.

FFG said: I'm watching the Cowboys get their asses kicked by Minnesota. I'll catch up a little later. I don't know about you but I'm actually enjoying this.

FFG said:

"I’m watching the Cowboys get their asses kicked by Minnesota. I’ll catch up a little later. I don’t know about you but I’m actually enjoying this."

Great. Then you won't mind answering all my questions. I answered yours after all. If you don't want to be labelled a Poe you are going to have to do better than this.

Go Vikings!

FFG said: Show me evidence that ID has been demonstrated to be fallacy-filled pseudoscience. That sounds like a made-up term to describe something that small-minded people cannot understand.

I just have one question for you all. Assuming TOE is real and the only answer, where did the original matter come from? ... Just tell me where the matter came from.

I don’t think I’m stretching too far when I again say that TOE is unproven. It’s a theory. It may be a very good theory, but it’s still just a theory. Unlike the law of gravity, it’s unproven.

FFG said: I'm watching the Cowboys get their asses kicked by Minnesota. I'll catch up a little later. I don't know about you but I'm actually enjoying this.

Rilke's granddaughter said: Just once I'd like an INTELLIGENT ID advocate to argue with. But that's an oxymoron.

Rilke's granddaughter said: So much for my desire for an intelligent opponent. You really ENJOY looking stupid? Fascinating.

FFG said: I'm watching the Cowboys get their asses kicked by Minnesota. I'll catch up a little later. I don't know about you but I'm actually enjoying this.

Keelyn said: No doubt. I've noticed that creationists often display an irrational desire to made fools of. And they are so easily accommodated.

Imagine my surprise at coming back to your blog and finding multiple messages of insults and demagoguery at my expense. It's obvious you're only interested in promoting your own misguided egos so I bid you farewell and good luck. I hope that someday you will take the time to have an open an honest discussion about this topic. I am no expert, but I do know that it is an important topic to a lot of people and it deserves a respectful discussion. Unfortunately you have proven yourselves to be typical atheistic ideologues with large mouths and small minds. Enjoy bloviating amongst yourselves. The next time I see a talking monkey I'll think of you.

In other words, nothing substantive to say. Yawn.

Fossil evidence shows that there have been several kinds of hominids that are now extinct. Whether these contributed to an evolution of man or not is impossible to prove, because all we have are fossils frozen in time. Fossils cannot say how these creatures lived their life: Were they half-man, half animal? Were they completely animalistic? Would they have been able to have a complex philosophical discussion with us? We cannot say with confidence.

What we can say is that from the earliest time we that find evidence of man, whether it be artistic drawings preserved on a cave wall, or the vast empires of Egypt and Babylon, man has been a unique creature totally different from all other animals. The dog did not draw well, and the chimp better, and humans better still! Our ability to communicate abstract thought, create art, and ponder our own existence sets us on another plane of life from the animals. Some people say this is because God made us that way.

There are not "overwhelming" amounts of transitional creatures. There are only a few dozen or so which appear as though they might be transitional creatures even among all the animals. But a commonality in form, such a a cat and a tiger, or an ape and a chimp does not "prove" evolution. Creationists claim that God made the world using many of the same building blocks, and this explains commonality.

Man shares about 95% of his genome with chimps. But we also share 75% of our genome with tapeworms!

Mutations generally lead to horrible travesties and distortions. We don't ever witness large-scale mutations that are beneficial. Evolution demands we believe that the biological world is a result of billions of mutations.

The universe as a whole is an exceedingly fine-tuned place. Check out this article by Discover magazine: http://discovermagazine.com/2000/nov/cover/#

The rise of life from non-life continues to confound biologists. It appears to be completely impossible.

Whether you believe in evolution or special creation, do not make the obtuse claim that we are simply here as the result of blind chance. The universe and life, and the uniqueness of man, demand more than a naturalistic explanation. The universe appears to have been designed as a place hospitable for life, life has emerged when it is naturalistically 'impossible', and man stands at the pinnacle of all creation asking a very odd question: "Why am I here?"

Flint said: In other words, nothing substantive to say. Yawn.

FFG said: *inane yattering snipped* The universe appears to have been designed as a place hospitable for life, life has emerged when it is naturalistically 'impossible', and man stands at the pinnacle of all creation asking a very odd question: "Why am I here?"

FFG said: Whether you believe in evolution or special creation, do not make the obtuse claim that we are simply here as the result of blind chance.

FFG said: I just have one question for you all. Assuming TOE is real and the only answer, where did the original matter come from?

What purpose is served by eliminating one possible explanation for the origination of life and the universe for the advancement of another when neither can be proven absolutely?

Once again, for those of you a little slow on the uptake, my reference was metaphoric in nature, not analogous. Book burning was intended to serve as an example of ignoring all texts non-secular in message. I realize that you work from a point of view that is more book smart than street wise so I should not expect you to understand my common sense narrative. My apologies.

FFG said: There are not "overwhelming" amounts of transitional creatures. There are only a few dozen or so

Man shares about 95% of his genome with chimps. But we also share 75% of our genome with tapeworms!

Mutations generally lead to horrible travesties and distortions. We don't ever witness large-scale mutations that are beneficial. Evolution demands we believe that the biological world is a result of billions of mutations.

The universe and life, and the uniqueness of man, demand more than a naturalistic explanation.

FFG said: Once again, for those of you a little slow on the uptake, my reference was metaphoric in nature, not analogous. Book burning was intended to serve as an example of ignoring all texts non-secular in message. I realize that you work from a point of view that is more book smart than street wise so I should not expect you to understand my common sense narrative. My apologies.

FFG said: I realize that you work from a point of view that is more book smart than street wise so I should not expect you to understand my common sense narrative. My apologies.

FFG said: I realize that you work from a point of view that is more book smart than street wise so I should not expect you to understand my common sense narrative. My apologies.

FFG said: Fossil evidence shows that there have been several kinds of hominids that are now extinct. Whether these contributed to an evolution of man or not is impossible to prove, because all we have are fossils frozen in time. Fossils cannot say how these creatures lived their life: Were they half-man, half animal? Were they completely animalistic? Would they have been able to have a complex philosophical discussion with us? We cannot say with confidence. What we can say is that from the earliest time we that find evidence of man, whether it be artistic drawings preserved on a cave wall, or the vast empires of Egypt and Babylon, man has been a unique creature totally different from all other animals. The dog did not draw well, and the chimp better, and humans better still! Our ability to communicate abstract thought, create art, and ponder our own existence sets us on another plane of life from the animals. Some people say this is because God made us that way. There are not "overwhelming" amounts of transitional creatures. There are only a few dozen or so which appear as though they might be transitional creatures even among all the animals. But a commonality in form, such a a cat and a tiger, or an ape and a chimp does not "prove" evolution. Creationists claim that God made the world using many of the same building blocks, and this explains commonality. Man shares about 95% of his genome with chimps. But we also share 75% of our genome with tapeworms! Mutations generally lead to horrible travesties and distortions. We don't ever witness large-scale mutations that are beneficial. Evolution demands we believe that the biological world is a result of billions of mutations. The universe as a whole is an exceedingly fine-tuned place. Check out this article by Discover magazine: http://discovermagazine.com/2000/nov/cover/# The rise of life from non-life continues to confound biologists. It appears to be completely impossible. Whether you believe in evolution or special creation, do not make the obtuse claim that we are simply here as the result of blind chance. The universe and life, and the uniqueness of man, demand more than a naturalistic explanation. The universe appears to have been designed as a place hospitable for life, life has emerged when it is naturalistically 'impossible', and man stands at the pinnacle of all creation asking a very odd question: "Why am I here?"

And OF COURSE his long screed is plagarism - just a cut and paste job from another site.

Not only is he and idiot; he's a thief.

Good to know.

And I really must stop letting my spell-checker correct for me.

FFG is a plagarist. Unoriginal. Ignorant.

Naturally.

FGG,

So your response is "No I will not answer your questions, even though you answered mine, even though I was the one who demanded evidence, even though I was the one who insulted all thinking people everywhere". Great. Now, next time you say that you are going to go away and not come back, keep your word!

Of course you don't dare answer eric's question either now do you?

I remember my first beer. It must be empowering to have the keys to such a powerful tool as the Internet at such a young and naive age. It's true that I didn't sign off when I said I would. Shame on me for trying to impart some knowledge on you before I actually gave up. Further, someone needs to crack open a dictionary along with their fantasy textbooks on Darwinism. Much like your belief in natural selection, language continues to evolve. In order for me to have plagiarized I would have to have stated that the information I provided was written by me, which of course I did not do. Are you suggesting that all of the information you have collectively shared through our discussion today was original thought based upon your own scientific research? I imagine you are regurgitating the information as received from professors and/or textbooks which, according to your definition of plagiarism, makes you guilty of the same. I must admit that I am impressed by your data. It's all very specific and well presented. If I was convinced that mankind was as smart as you seem to believe we are then I'd be sold on TOE. But, alas, I have eyes that see the wonder of the universe in all of its complexity and no one will ever convince me that it simply happened to come about this way by chance. Thank God for private shcools wherein children can learn the truth of creation and decide for themselves whether or not their peers came from a divine being, or apes. Based upon our conversation today, I am almost convinced that you all did in fact come from a lower form of primate.

FFG,

If you refuse to answer my questions I will no longer respond to you or read any more of your silly posts. For someone who complains so much about insults, you sure are an insulting little primate. Now how about it, got any answers or not?

FFG said: Shame on me for trying to impart some knowledge on you before I actually gave up.

Are you suggesting that all of the information you have collectively shared through our discussion today was original thought based upon your own scientific research?

Find your own answers, Capernicus. You all should really get a life. Too much time blogging, amongst other things, will make you go blind. Thanks for the entertainment.

FFG said: Thanks for the entertainment.

FFG said: Find your own answers, Capernicus. You all should really get a life. Too much time blogging, amongst other things, will make you go blind. Thanks for the entertainment.

FFG said: Find your own answers, Capernicus.

DS said: P.S. Look up Copernicus, you can't spell either.

So let's see.

FFG flounces into an old thread.

Makes stupid, ignorant comments about science.

Makes stupid, ignorant comments about history and education.

Shows he's so thin-skinned that his poor little-baby feelings are hurt by being called on his ignorance, inability to reason, and limited experience with the English language.

Flounces off leaving a massive cut and paste job from someone else - thus showing that in addition to being ignorant and unable to reason, he's also completely lacking in creativity and honesty.

Lies about leaving.

You really aren't very good at this, are you my child?

Rilke's granddaughter said: So let's see. FFG flounces into an old thread. Makes stupid, ignorant comments about science. Makes stupid, ignorant comments about history and education. Shows he's so thin-skinned that his poor little-baby feelings are hurt by being called on his ignorance, inability to reason, and limited experience with the English language. Flounces off leaving a massive cut and paste job from someone else - thus showing that in addition to being ignorant and unable to reason, he's also completely lacking in creativity and honesty. Lies about leaving. You really aren't very good at this, are you my child?

Good point. I've always wondered about the mentality that demands equal time for alternative "theorie" but would run in terror from the actual implementation of that idea.

Umm, 5 virtual dollars that he isn't finished yet. Hopefully, he'll prove me wrong.

FFG said: But, alas, I have eyes that see the wonder of the universe in all of its complexity and no one will ever convince me that it simply happened to come about this way by chance.

The nested hierarchy of genetic similarity seen between all living organisms is extremely strong evidence that the diversity of life evolved through descent with modification. Unless of course you have a better explanation. Please note that “common design” does not explain this pattern. Also please note that this pattern is completely consistent with all of the paleontology and developmental data.

Now what kind of person picks a fight and then runs away? I know, a cowardly lyin.

An example of what taunting and trolling can do. A few assertions of arrant nonsense, and the thread has doubled its length.

And yet, how is a rational community to reply to taunts like that one - that we're acting like Nazis because we approve the dismissal of a teacher who has profoundly violated professional ethics by prosyletising his religion in a public-school science class, and by promulgating gross libels against an entire body of scientific understanding, in flat defiance of the lawful directions of his supervisors and the fundamental law of the nation?

How are we to respond to the nonsense? Not just the science. That the Ten Commandments are fundamental to US history? That the United States is specifically and uniquely blessed by God, above all other nations? That not to believe these things is to be a "whacko liberal"?

It's not surprising that someone who is capable of saying such things with a straight face would also be capable of saying that the Theory of Evolution is "just a theory", meaning guess or conjecture, or that it is based on pure chance, or that the origin of atoms has some relevance to evolution. There is simply no contact with reality there.

But the invincible ignorance of those assertions is fully eclipsed by the monumental, towering arrogance. This bloke knows no science at all, but really does believe that he knows more than any of the professors or textbook writers, and he swaggers in here to say so. Nothing will ever convince him, he says. No evidence will sway him. He already knows what he thinks, and evidence would only be a distraction.

How is a community that actually cares for whether something is rational or not to respond to this? If we debate him respectfully, we give his shoddy nonsense stature; if we respond to his taunts in like fashion, we are accused of incivility; if we ignore him, it is said that we cannot reply.

For me, there is no choice. His nonsense must be debunked, here, now, in the place where it was uttered. What else is there to be done?

Dave Luckett said: How are we to respond to the nonsense? Not just the science. That the Ten Commandments are fundamental to US history? [Etc...]

For me, there is no choice. His nonsense must be debunked, here, now, in the place where it was uttered. What else is there to be done?

MACROEVOLUTIONISTS IN OREGON SUCCEEDED IN CRUSHING THE CAREER OF AN UNCOMPROMISING CHRISTIAN WHO, LIKE ROBERT PARK DARED SPEAK TRUTH TO MACROEVOLUTIONIST POWER! AMERICAN MACROEVOLUTIONSTS WILL NEVER SUCCEED IN EXTERMINATING CHRISTIANS EVEN IF THEY ESTABLISH A TOTAL MACROEVOLUTIONIST STATE UNDER THEIR OWN DEAR LEADER OBAMA!

But of course, there's ignorance, and then there is batshit insanity.

Dave Luckett said: But of course, there's ignorance, and then there is batshit insanity.

Stanton said:

Dave Luckett said: But of course, there's ignorance, and then there is batshit insanity.

Maybe in Robert Park's case. In Yum's case, he's just playing the part of an Asshole for Jesus.

YUM YUM WROTE NONSENSE.

CREATIONISTS IN OREGON DID NOT SUCCEED IN CRUSHING THE TRUTH BY BEING UNCOMPROMISING, IGNORANT AND ARROGANT. AMERICAN CREATIONISTS WILL NEVER SUCCEED IN EXTERMINATING SCIENCE EVEN IF THEY ESTABLISH A TOTAL CREATIONIST STATE UNDER THEIR OWN DEAR LEADER KEN HAM!

THERE THAT FIXES IT.

Jack,

This two year old thread has become infested with trolls. Time to close the thread.

yum install Jesus said: MACROEVOLUTIONISTS IN OREGON SUCCEEDED IN CRUSHING THE CAREER OF AN UNCOMPROMISING CHRISTIAN ... DARED SPEAK TRUTH TO MACROEVOLUTIONIST POWER!