Explore Evolution: The Discovery Institute's winsome creationist textbook

@Frank Degenaar: threatening people with terrible consequences after they die, the argumentum postmortem, is utterly pointless since it requires your audience to first agree with you about what happens when you die.

Noting that ID is creationism is the most accurate simple thing you can say about ID.

— Nick Matzke

Obviously I disagree. I think you are falling into the carefully-laid trap that the ID guys have set. You wouldn't be the first, especially in the late 1990s a lot of insufficiently cynical people bought the "ID isn't creationism, no sirree" line that the DI was putting out.

— Nick Matzke

What gets me is that these guys know that the teach the controversy scam is being perpetrated by the same dishonest perps that lied to them about the teach ID scam, and they don't care. They are falling all over themselves to be lied to again.

This is a mind set that I can't understand. Why would a majority of the Ohio State board of education take the replacement scam, offered in the bait and switch scam that the ID perps played on them, when the ID perps tried to lie to their faces about the "science" of ID? It isn't like they knew that they could trust the ID perps. Heck, they had to know that the bait and switch was being played on them. Once they actually saw the model lesson plan they had to know that ID wasn't even mentioned in the replacement scam, so why did they try to continue? They had bought into the teach ID scam. There is no doubt about that. So why get scammed by the bait and switch ploy?

Do these guys blame themselves for not understanding what the real scam was? Anyone that didn't know that the bait and switch was being run was probably in the majority, but after it was being played out how could they go along with it?

Now the ID perps are trying to claim that they never proposed to teach ID in the public schools. Who would believe that? Meyer left the Ohio board with the parting shot that he didn't think that the decision to teach ID should be made at the state level, but should be made at the local level. Everyone found out what a lie that was during the Dover fiasco. You couldn't get any more local than that.

What is the mental rationalization? Is it because it is the only game in town? Why don't they find another dealer once they know that the one they have is dealing off the bottom of the deck and taking them for a rube?

What are evolutionists fighting so hard against, other than a conscience that recognizes their Creator

Actually, most "evolutionists" do indeed believe in a Creator; and our faith is probably stronger than that of the creationists, who show their insecurity, uncertainty, and lack of faith by desperately trying to deny the obvious reality that we observe in our Gods' creation.

Evolutionists first and foremost fight against their consciences, which necessitates a doctoring of facts and reality to appease it for brief moments.

Creationists routinely lie, appeal to ignorance, and bear false witness with the intent of inciting hatred against innocent people. And now you're questioning OUR conscience? At least we're not making death-threats against you, as some of you have done to us. Your desperation is as laughable as it is obvious.

And threatening eternal punishment is the final proof that you have nothing else to offer.

Bottom like: I think ID is a scam, and most people still see it primarily as honest belief, if not honest "alternative science". Last I heard 60-70% of the public is OK with "teach the controversy," and that includes ~20% that claims to accept evolution. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that the approach that is impressively winning in the courts is not the one that will win in the court of public opinion.

What are evolutionists fighting so hard against, other than a conscience that recognizes their Creator?

Dang,
Anyone know how to get the PowerPoint for "E.E."?

I want to get my hands on the PowerPoint that is provided with the text. I start my school year off showing my science students Godzilla as a fun prop for a discussion on science and scientific theory. The PowerPoint would be an even better monster to show the chillins what is not science and scientific theory.

No disrespect to Godzilla intended

Furthermore, I have explained time and time again that most people don't know what "intelligent design" means and mistake it to mean a nice Mr Rogers kind of vague theism, until it is explained (this is no coincidence; it's why that particular term was coined, to bamboozle people).

— harold

What are evolutionists fighting so hard against, other than a conscience that recognizes their Creator?

We fight against the idea that specific statements about the nature of that creator and creation must be accepted on faith and cannot be questioned.

My only hope is that they too will turn to Jesus Christ, the hope of all the world, just as I have done.

I'm sure you agree that it would be creationist-like and internicine to propose a dissembling strategy of "one message in court and a different message in public".

— Harold

Are you sure you have committed your faith to the right God here?

He says right there that he turned to Jesus Christ, the hope of the world. Sounds like the right God to me.

Both of you, of course, are only speaking metaphorically and neither of you have a clue what you're talking about. But you both sound very impressive to each other, I'm sure.

He says right there that he turned to Jesus Christ, the hope of the world. Sounds like the right God to me.

Both of you, of course, are only speaking metaphorically and neither of you have a clue what you're talking about. But you both sound very impressive to each other, I'm sure.

Thanks for the thought-out responses. Many people certainly make sense. It depends what side of the coin you`re presented with first though, except that in this case the analogy of a coin does not suffice.
Quick question just out of curiosity, since I am not familiar with all of the possibilities: Would anyone out there call themselves (or at least identify their standpoint) as being that of both a creationist and evolutionist at the same time? I mean, I know that there are innumerable people who believe in a Creator, and don`t rule out the possibility of evolution being within His scope of things... but just for the sake of terminology, I`m interested to find whether anyone would consider themselves to be an advocate of both "labels", despite the heated debate, saying, "I am a creationist and an evolutionist."

Quick question just out of curiosity, since I am not familiar with all of the possibilities: Would anyone out there call themselves (or at least identify their standpoint) as being that of both a creationist and evolutionist at the same time?

— Frang Degenaar

Of course, rejecting evolution because it 'conflicts' with faith is a sure indicator of lack of faith.

Possibly a lack of faith in a particular sort of God. But not a lack of faith in a nefarious JC wannabe. :-)

Frank: You speak of the position known as theistic evolution, the belief that God created the Earth and life but that he used the natural mechanisms we observe to accomplish it, evolution being one of them.

This is, however, an unfortunate middle ground for some. Fundie Christians don't like it because they feel it's a cop out, a pandering to the other side and a rejection of the truth of the Bible. Hardcore atheists don't like it for reasons I'm less familiar with - perhaps because they feel it's a flimsy attempt to keep everyone happy.

I, personally, feel it is the best way to reconcile faith and science. All you have to do is assume God is not lying to you or trying to trick you, when you look at the world.

The IDers can present their "sciencey" product to school boards and some of those members, like Heather Geesey, the former Dover Area School Board member, will swallow it (without fully comprehending it or even reading the entire tract), because they will see it as a way of bringing Jesus back into school. Such people will likely find EE very convincing.

386sx wrote, "Possibly a lack of faith in a particular sort of God. But not a lack of faith in a nefarious JC wannabe. :-)"

I actually learned something from you, but I must admit that I had to go to an online dictionary to find out what nefarious meant:
---Synonyms flagitious, heinous, infamous; vile, atrocious, execrable.
There´s no doubt that you must be a very intellectual individual, especially when I see nefarious mentioned twice in the same thread.
Thanks Frank J and pigwidgeon for your explanations. Much appreciated.

Would anyone out there call themselves (or at least identify their standpoint) as being that of both a creationist and evolutionist at the same time? I mean, I know that there are innumerable people who believe in a Creator, and don't rule out the possibility of evolution being within His scope of things... but just for the sake of terminology, I'm interested to find whether anyone would consider themselves to be an advocate of both "labels", despite the heated debate, saying, "I am a creationist and an evolutionist."

Well thank you Frank. It's really pretty simple. If you have faith in a God that doesn't make sense, then a belief in something that doesn't make sense does not indicate a lack of faith in a God that doesn't make sense. it really doesn't take a very intellectual individual to comprehend that. But thanks. :-)

Of course, Intelligent Design is Creationism.

To prove it with a simple computer experiment, simply click on the following link: http://www.creation-science.com/

Before you click, make sure the link will be to www.creation-science.com. Or just type in "www.creation-science.com" in your browser's "location" field.

Where do you end up? At a creationist site, or at an ID site?

If the latter, why is it that "Intelligent Design" people own the domain "www.creation-science.com" ?

Q.E.D.

Dave

Would anyone out there call themselves (or at least identify their standpoint) as being that of both a creationist and evolutionist at the same time?

Short answer: No. "Creationist" doesn't just mean "believing in a Creator;" it means believing -- and, most importantly, believing science classes should teach -- that supernatural agency in the creation/development of life on Earth can be, and/or has been, scientifically proven; that modern evolutionary theory is wrong, or at best incomlete because it doesn't allow for said supernatural agency; and that religious doctrine should therefore be integrated with science.

There are plenty of people, scientists and non-scientists, who believe in a Creator who used his/her/their powers to ensure that life on Earth, including Humans, turned out the way it did; but who also flatly reject "creationism," "creation science," and "intelligent design" as ignorant and/or dishonest pseudoscience, on the level of astrology. We believe in various Gods, but we also accept that science has not, and probably never will, prove or disprove the existence or agency of our Gods.

Sounds like a very good idea. If evolutionists can't defend their belief, maybe they should consider Intelligent Design.

But if they really want to enhance their popularity they should build us a living cell from scratch. That should do it.

If it weren't so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.

Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence 'FOR' evolution for THEMSELVES.

Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the 'raw' stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth's recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and Walla, LIFE!

Oh, you don't believe the 'original' Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!

PS: Please don't lie about the 'first life' problem, scientists are falling all over themselves to make a living cell. Many have admitted publicly that it is a monumental problem. And is many years away from happening, if ever. Logical people understand this problem and have rightly concluded that an Intelligent Designer was absolutely necessary. Think of it this way, if all the brilliant scientists on earth can't do it how on earth can anyone believe that it happened by accident?????

"James Collins" appears to be saying that if we could intelligently design a cell then he'd believe in evolution.

Sounds like a very good idea. If evolutionists can't defend their belief, maybe they should consider Intelligent Design.

But if they really want to enhance their popularity they should build us a living cell from scratch. That should do it.

If it weren't so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology. Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so.

It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence 'FOR' evolution for THEMSELVES.

Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the 'raw' stuff, and the argument is over.

But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth's recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and Walla, LIFE! Oh, you don't believe the 'original' Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!

PS: Please don't lie about the 'first life' problem, scientists are falling all over themselves to make a living cell. Many have admitted publicly that it is a monumental problem. And is many years away from happening, if ever. Logical people understand this problem and have rightly concluded that an Intelligent Designer was absolutely necessary. Think of it this way, if all the brilliant scientists on earth can't do it how on earth can anyone believe that it happened by accident?????

I beleive a teacher from the following school is planning on using the textbook to "teach the controversy" in a biology class this upcoming school year. What a shame.

Curtis High School
8425 40th Street W
University Place, WA 98466
Phone: (253) 566-5710; Fax: (253)566-5626
David Hammond, Principal
Terry Jenks, Asst. Principal &Athletic Dir.
Jeff Johnson , Asst. Principal
Rosalynn McKenna, Asst. Principal
Ron Brock, Coordinator Student Discipline

Sounds like a very good idea. If evolutionists can't defend their belief, maybe they should consider Intelligent Design.

Think of it this way, if all the brilliant scientists on earth can't do it how on earth can anyone believe that it happened by accident?????

Not long ago, all the brilliant scientists on earth were incapable of generating a useful electric current. That doesn't mean magic is required for it.

James Collins: But if they really want to enhance their popularity they should build us a living cell from scratch. That should do it.

Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so.

No, it's because people who have earned RESPECT by getting results and demostrating understanding of the real world say it is so. And the people who deny it, are people who show no understanding of the real world, get no beneficial results, and lie as easily as they fart.

Scientists have already recreated 3 life forms from scratch. Polio, the 1918 epidemic form of influenza, and a human endogenous retrovirus now called Phoenix. Two of those were extinct, the retrovirus had long ago gone defective.

The creation of de novo life forms is going on right now. Recent advances in sequencing and synthesis of long macromolecules makes this possible. Look up minimal cell project in any search engine.

Harold,

Sure. I didn't read much of JCs ravings and wasn't going to spend much time on a nuanced reply.

With his hit and run troll style and high levels of incoherence and confusion, why bother?

Science in general including biology and medicine have made the world very different and in many ways much better in the last 200 years. Anyone who needs the obvious explained to them, is on a permanent vacation from reality and wouldn't understand.

What are evolutionists fighting so hard against?

Would anyone out there call themselves (or at least identify their standpoint) as being that of both a creationist and evolutionist at the same time?

Purely hypothetically, Behe and Wells should possess this knowledge.

Frank Degenaar--
Please, please don't pay much attention to James Collins. He has his own agenda. The take-home message here is that millions of people are sincere Christians and also sincerely believe that the living world evolved over billions of years. In fact, a lot of sincere Christians are appalled by the creationists because of their low morals and their endless lies.
You will read many comments by atheists on this blog, but they do not include everyone, and I suspect even the most vocal atheists here would stand firm for your right to practice your religion as you see fit-- as long as you don't interfere with the United States constitution, which is what the creationists are doing.
I hope you'll seriously reconsider your opposition to evolution, after these exchanges.

You will read many comments by atheists on this blog, but they do not include everyone, and I suspect even the most vocal atheists here would stand firm for your right to practice your religion as you see fit

"James Collins" appears to be saying that if we could intelligently design a cell then he'd believe in evolution.

— Steven Wells

Sorry. Make that "Stephen," not "Steven." It's bad enough that a "Steve" has to live with a last name of "Wells." ;-)

Like malaria, HIV is a microbe

Perhaps Raven, 193029, is not aware that many scientists don't characterize viruses as life? Hah, raven is aware...raven is just lying.

Websters New World Medical Dictionary Definition of Viruses Viruses: Small living particles that can infect cells and change how the cells function. Infection with a virus can cause a person to develop symptoms. The disease and symptoms that are caused depend on the type of virus and the type of cells that are infected.

Raven -

It would appear that there is some consensus that virues are living (which is the view I strongly favor).

In a not-terribly-good section, Wikipedia claims that there is still some debate - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus#Lifeform_debate

The absence of citations obviously weakens that section considerably.

It doesn't really matter. Let's review the context.

1) A creationist nonsensically claimed that "evolutionists" should "create a living cell", showing that he does not even know what evolution means, disingenuously seeks to set an impossible goalpost, and so on.
2) In addition to having it pointed out that this would be a model of abiogenesis not evolution, he was told, by you, that scientists have, in fact, already reconstituted some viruses and created some freely replicating systems, which was relevant because it shows that even his irrelevant "impossible" goalpost was not as impossible as he ignorantly assumed.
3) So a second creationist showed up and called you a "liar" on the grounds that "many" scientists don't "consider" viruses to be alive. Note that the accusation would false even if the claim were true - if "many" but not all don't, then "some" must.

These two have no clue what they're talking about and all the criticisms of their posts were valid. Whether or not anyone still makes an argument against considering viruses to be "alive" - which can be reasonably, although I think pointlessly, made - is really not important.

Bullshit. That is NOT the mainstream conception. Damn, you really were lying, weren't you?

Harold, you are dealing with a troll. It isn't worth the time. I've got that guy's number. He isn't a xian, he is mentally ill and has been banned from numerous boards. If the PT moderators were awake, he would be gone here as well.

The word I used was life form. Whether calling viruses living or not is semantics.

More would agree that an organic based replicator with a genetic code that reproduces, persists, spreads, mutates, and evolves is on the animate side of the animate-inanimate divide.

Are Viruses Alive? It's largely an anthropomorphic (or biopomorphic?) position to say that a virus is alive. We'd be more comfortable with them if they were, but by the rules we've established, they're not. They clearly cannot respire, grow or reproduce on their own.

More would agree that an organic based replicator with a genetic code that reproduces, persists, spreads, mutates, and evolves is on the animate side of the animate-inanimate divide.

Ja! Who cares about words? Mere semantics. The DEED is the thing.

If the PT moderators were awake, he would be gone here as well.

What is a Virus? http://www.mcb.uct.ac.za/tutorial/virwhat.html DEFINITION VIRIONS OTHER VIRUS-LIKE AGENTS Viruses Viruses may be defined as acellular organisms whose genomes consist of nucleic acid, and which obligately replicate inside host cells using host metabolic machinery and ribosomes to form a pool of components which assemble into particles called VIRIONS, which serve to protect the genome and to transfer it to other cells. They are distinct from other so-called VIRUS-LIKE AGENTS such as VIROIDS and PLASMIDS and PRIONS ----- Alternative definitions: Luria et al. Cann The concept of a virus as an organism challenges the way we define life: viruses do not respire, nor do they display irritability; they do not move and nor do they grow, however, they do most certainly reproduce, and may adapt to new hosts. By older, more zoologically and botanically biased criteria, then, viruses are not living. However, this sort of argument results from a "top down" sort of definition, which has been modified over years to take account of smaller and smaller things (with fewer and fewer legs, or leaves), until it has met the ultimate "molechisms" or "organules" - that is to say, viruses - and has proved inadequate. If one defines life from the bottom up - that is, from the simplest forms capable of displaying the most essential attributes of a living thing - one very quickly realises that the only real criterion for life is: ---- The ability to replicate and that only systems that contain nucleic acids - in the natural world, at least - are capable of this phenomenon. This sort of reasoning has led to a new definition of organisms: "An organism is the unit element of a continuous lineage with an individual evolutionary history." The key words here are UNIT ELEMENT, and INDIVIDUAL: the thing that you see, now, as an organism is merely the current slice in a continuous lineage; the individual evolutionary history denotes the independence of the organism over time. Thus, mitochondria and chloroplasts and nuclei and chromosomes are not organisms, in that together they constitute a continuous lineage, but separately have no possibility of survival, despite their independence before they entered initially symbiotic, and then dependent associations. The concept of replication is contained within the concepts of individual viruses constituting continuous lineages, and having an evolutionary history. Thus, given this sort of lateral thinking, viruses become quite respectable as organisms: they most definitely replicate, their evolution can (within limits) be traced quite effectively, and they are independent in terms of not being limited to a single organism as host, or even necessarily to a single species, genus or phylum of host. Copyright Ed Rybicki, October 1995; April, June,1998

Is there any evidence of these "replicators" in the fossil record?

Any that predate living cells?

Have any such "replicators" been observed in the field?

The study of viruses is almost invariably considered to be a part of biology. Viruses replicate and evolve, and it is possible that some could have evolved from cells of some kind.

The old distinction was that viruses aren't life as separate "collections of chemicals", but are life when they have invaded the cell and their genetic material becomes part of the metabolism. It's not an entirely useless view, since crystallized viruses hardly seem to be living, but does it make sense to us that non-life becomes life during the cycle of infection?

I don't see many troubling with that rather tedious distinction any more.

What I really thought might be worth bringing up is how arbitrary the definition of "cell" could be considered to be. Yes I know, cells have membranes, viruses have capsids or might even be "naked". Seriously, though, does any of this matter to the "creation of life"?

Especially a virus in a capsid might be thought of as a cell in the more generic sense. There's nothing wrong with the biological definition that identifies viruses as non-cells, but I'd sure hate to hang the ability of humans to re-create living things on the biological definition of "the cell".

One more thing. Of course IDists will claim any success by humans in re-creating a bacterium for "design," but they do that for any and every time that humans copy biology to tap into the solutions invented by evolution. It's stupidly circular, of course.

I don't think anyone should suggest that re-creating a bacterium would be evidence in favor of ID, any more than the fact that we can create DNA is evidence for ID.

Copying "nature" is an old human pursuit, and, for instance, it is how the Wright brothers managed to come up with both a plane and flight (flight skills, maneuverability) at the same time. Oddly enough, the design looked almost nothing like evolved flying organisms, plus it bettered flight in at least one aspect (while birds are still better in other aspects), power, for thought can do what billions of years of evolution cannot.

I wonder why we never see these triumphs of thought in nature. I mean, you'd almost think that everything evolved and wasn't designed.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

It just occurred to me that perhaps we ought to demand evidence for thought in nature from IDists.

"Design" was deliberately chosen by IDists to use because it is rather amorphous and confusing. To most of the public, "design" does imply a designer, while traditionally in science one could speak of the "designs" of life and of patterned frost on windows, since "design" can be taken to be a pattern (this can be what is meant outside of science as well, it's just that "design" points first to designers in the vernacular).

And IDists continue to insist that design exists in biology without in the slightest showing that anything is the result of rational, or even irrational, thought. Doesn't God think?

So we could ask them to provide evidence of actual thought existing in nature, something that anticipates need, perhaps shows some concern for humanity (Behe's claiming the opposite, the design of mosquitos and P. falciparum which afflict the humans which supposedly are the telos of design). I mean, anything that shows thoughtfulness, concern, care, rationality, you know, aspects that we associate with intelligence.

Sure, they'll ignore these types of questions just as they always have ignored any call for evidence in favor of their claims. But it might help to puncture their bags of hot air if occasionally employed, no matter how much they try to avoid accountability.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Actually, this is relatively okay. "Microbe" is a generalized term;

They are nucleic acid self-replicators who can self-replicate successfully in the correct environment.

Sounds like a very good idea. If evolutionists can't defend their belief, maybe they should consider Intelligent Design.

— James Collins

But if they really want to enhance their popularity they should build us a living cell from scratch. That should do it.

If it weren't so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.

Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so.

It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available:

Try answersingenesis.org.

The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence 'FOR' evolution for THEMSELVES.

Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the 'raw' stuff, and the argument is over.

But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth's recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and Walla, LIFE!

Oh, you don't believe the 'original' Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!

PS: Please don't lie about the 'first life' problem, scientists are falling all over themselves to make a living cell.

Many have admitted publicly that it is a monumental problem.

And is many years away from happening, if ever.

Logical people understand this problem

and have rightly concluded that an Intelligent Designer was absolutely necessary.

Think of it this way, if all the brilliant scientists on earth can't do it how on earth can anyone believe that it happened by accident?????

If you use the term "belief" to mean a conviction that Modern Evolutionary Theory (that I abbreviate to MET) is the best description and explanation we have for the facts we observe in biology, then there is no call to defend it.

— Nigel D

Frank, that's a fair point.

How can science, which is based on facts (all the facts, and nothing but the facts), compete with a sales pitch, in which facts are twisted, distorted, omitted or invented to serve the message?

Nigel,

I assume that your question was meant to be rhetorical, but for the sake of the lurkers, unless the culture values science, it can't compete.

Several people here have been telling me that ID has been losing popularity since the Dover defeat. But when I see millions falling, more than ever, for all sorts of feel-good sound bites, whether for "miracle cures," horoscopes, etc., I'm not ready to celebrate yet. ID will "evolve" to meet the need.

I shall assume you meant "Voila!".

Yet the latest research in this area is indicating that it may not be so unlikely after all.

Frank J.: Several people here have been telling me that ID has been losing popularity since the Dover defeat. But when I see millions falling, more than ever, for all sorts of feel-good sound bites, whether for "miracle cures," horoscopes, etc., I'm not ready to celebrate yet. ID will "evolve" to meet the need.

Torbjorn -

All I can say to Wikipedia is that I disagree with a semantic definition of "microorganism" or "microbe" that excludes viruses, and in my personal experience, using the term in an inclusive sense is well-accepted, at least informally. My grounds are mainly pragmatic. Viruses by their nature are the purview of such fields as microbiology and infectious disease. It's helpful to have not only specific terms, but also a generalized term.

Of course, the virus-excluding definition would have the advantage of making Behe wrong one extra time :-), but that's like a drop in the ocean.

(Prions are another story. Even if the protein-only hypothesis is correct, they could almost be conceived of as chemical toxins. The "reproduction" spoken of in this hypothesis is merely an induced change in the conformation of a second, already-formed protein molecule. Possible secondary upregulation notwithstanding, in the protein-only hypothesis, prions cannot, of course, directly cause the construction of new prions from individual amino acids. So refering to a prion protein molecule as a "microbe" or organism" would be ludicrous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prion)

Raven and Frank J. -

I have a bit more faith in the average person. I think that polls are often biased, and make people look far more ignorant than they actually are.

The number of people who are seriously committed to a belief that the sun goes around the earth is surely well below 20%. The maximum number who can make that mistake is 20%, but carelessness, apathy, and confusion play roles.

You could shift the bias to the correct answer by doing something like including a diagram of the solar system, or writing the question along the lines of "Since the 16th century, it has been known that the sun is at the center of the solar system, and the planets, including the earth, revolve around the sun. Do you agree with this?"

Likewise, I wonder what kind of support ID would get if this question were on a poll -

"Recently elected Fundamentalist school board members in a rural school district, who possess little formal education themselves, wish to replace some science teaching with lessons from a book that the vast majority of scientists condemn, and that lawyers warn violates the constitutional rights of students by singling out some religious sects for favoritism, as well as by potentially putting them at a competitive disadvantage, relative to students from districts where mainstream science is taught.

Voters were not aware that the school board members would recommend this course of action when they voted for them.

Do you think that the school board should insist on the use of this controversial book, or stick to the teaching of accepted, mainstream science?"

I'm teaching my course on religion and science again this semester, and while I'm absolutely opposed to the 'teach the controversy' approach in a science class (since there isn't a scientific controversy over evolution in the way some creationists and ID proponents claim), it seems to me appropriate to present readings from both sides in this undergraduate college course specifically on religion and science.

Reading some young-earth creationist excerpts again made me cringe with just how awful and inaccurate they are. But even including on my reading list excerpts from Behe's latest book (see my blog at http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2007/08/heart-of-matter-what-does-god-do.html for some of my thoughts on it) together with critiques of Intelligent Design, seems to me to be necessary, not simply because of 'fairness', but because a failure to do so might lead students to think that I wasn't doing justice to the strength of ID's arguments. This way, they can see them for what they are.

Is that the best approach? Does anyone have any thoughts or suggestions on this?

Harold,

I'll try to find it, but long ago I wrote (here or Talk.Origins) what i think would be a fair poll question.

In the meantime, I would add this to your question about the school board:

"Those books put students at a competitive disadvantage because they misrepresent the relevant science under the pretense of "critical analysis." Such methods have been shown to cause students to infer alternative "theories" that are demonstrably false. Those who write and promote those books to unsuspecting school boards are aware that such books conveniently exempt those other "theories" from a critical analysis that they know they cannot withstand."

I have a bit more faith in the average person. I think that polls are often biased, and make people look far more ignorant than they actually are.

Glen, you make some interesting points there. I think also that so many people, having been raised in a town or city with very little contact with nature, are entirely ignorant of how plants and animals grow, reproduce and behave.

I recently started reading The Origin of Species, and it amazes me how much knowledge (that Darwin uses in examples) that was once general has been lost to the populace at large. Of course, back in 1859, most people valued education, because it was available to so few, relatively speaking.

Is that the best approach? Does anyone have any thoughts or suggestions on this?

— James McGrath

James McGrath: Is that the best approach? Does anyone have any thoughts or suggestions on this?

Raven wrote:
"The real world is so much more mysterious, fascinating, large, complicated, and open ended than a simple minded story written by sheepherders barely out of the stone age."

It is interesting to note that Raven, by his own admission is also barely out of the stone age... do you really think you have a higher inherent capacity for intelligence than people who lived a few thousand years ago? Your ignorance is popping at the seams.
A simple minded story... well, simple enough for anyone to understand, but really an account which heralded in a reality which we barely understand on a biological level, as we strain even no to discover what is right under our nose (microscope).
By heart, you are as you say, fascinated with the mysterious... don´t let this cloud your perception.

Oliver North?

I am sure the movie referenced in comment 193913 is the one by Oliver Stone.
Although Oliver North's story would make a good movie too -"Shreds of Evidence"

Oops, yes, Oliver Stone.

It's hard to keep track of names that mean so little to me, but thanks for straightening them out.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

By heart, you are as you say, fascinated with the mysterious... don´t let this cloud your perception.

One of my minor quibbles with creationism is how boring and mundane it is. The earth is 6,000 years old,...

— raven

It is interesting to note that Raven, by his own admission is also barely out of the stone age... do you really think you have a higher inherent capacity for intelligence than people who lived a few thousand years ago? Your ignorance is popping at the seams.

By heart, you are as you say, fascinated with the mysterious... don´t let this cloud your perception.

Explore Evolution might be useful. If it is printed on soft, absorbent paper.

do you really think you have a higher inherent capacity for intelligence than people who lived a few thousand years ago?

All I can say to Wikipedia is that I disagree with a semantic definition of "microorganism" or "microbe" that excludes viruses, and in my personal experience, using the term in an inclusive sense is well-accepted, at least informally.

Prions are another story. Even if the protein-only hypothesis is correct, they could almost be conceived of as chemical toxins.

harold:

Come to think of it, AFAIK there may be another major reason not to care much for prion "evolution" outside epidemiological models - they are really an unusual byproduct of a common mechanism.

AFAIK some proteins will fold wrong, after production, after provocation, or spontaneous change. It is just that prions are much more resistant against the mechanisms that restore or destruct such proteins.

Kind of the transcript situation in reverse, as I understand it - some random transcripts may perhaps happen at low frequency, by failures in normal transcripts or by mistake outside normal transcription areas, but who would care to call this, um, for example genes and gene products?

Just a passer by wanting to note after reading some of the comments above....

You would have to be insane or completely biased, or a liar (but I'd rather not mention that), to think that FL hasn't shown here how Nick Matzke is unabashedly devoted to rhetoric and misinformation.

It is very very apparent to those of us in the middle that the anti-ID crowd has almost entirely resorted (a long time ago) to name-calling, misinformation, and statement making as their chosen weapon of argumentation. And it is so pathetically sad...

MS

Raven...
It´s pretty basic when I asked whether Raven assumes to have a higher intellectual capacity than Moses, who lived a few thousand years ago and "penned" the first 5 books of the Bible. A few thousand years is absolutely nothing when it comes to millions of years in evolutionary thought. Moses barely coming out of the stone age - as you put it - has no bearing on whether we perceive a "story" to be simple-minded or not... and in so saying you speak down on a period of history as if it had no capacity other than for simple-minded stories. You know exactly what I mean. Your comment was intended to be denigrating. I´m sure you got my point the first time.
A point in case is the book of Leviticus (written by Moses) which is the first and only system in any culture that has ever existed that details sanitary procedures (related to general hygiene and quarantine of communicable diseases or illnesses), until modern medicine arrived on the scene.
You basically say that Moses was a "sheepherder barely out of the stone age". It sure sounds poetic and colorful, but it sounds equally as daft.

Guyefauxe... My comment regarding Raven´s use of "mystery", and not to let it cloud his/ her perceptions, comes about when in the same breath he/ she talks about opinions as if they were empirically proven. His/ her cravings for mystery lean toward personal opinion rather than science or the absolute. I myself love mystery... but you can´t spout romantic sentiments and absolute truth in the same paragraph when you are making a demeaning statement that millions of people in this world believe otherwise about.

A point in case is the book of Leviticus (written by Moses) which is the first and only system in any culture that has ever existed that details sanitary procedures

On the prion point, is it significant that a prion protein does not code for the production of more prion protein in the cell. There are genes which produce prion proteins; and a misfolded protein catalyses other proteins to also misfold. But none of this makes the cell produce more prion protein, in either the normal or the misfolded form- I guess because the cell has no mechanisms to back-translate proteins into genes. I think I'd put prions on the non-living side of the (rather vague and blurry) life/nonlife classification, whereas I'd put viruses on the living side because they carry genes that code for their own proteins. Sure, they reproduce only inside other cells, but if we count obligate parasites as living creatures it seems unfair to penalise viruses just for not having their own ribosomes.

which is the first and only system in any culture that has ever existed that details sanitary procedures (related to general hygiene and quarantine of communicable diseases or illnesses), until modern medicine arrived on the scene.

Stevaroni,
you certainly build a crappy case, no doubt.
Actually, I´d like to redirect the emphasis to that of hygiene and stopping the spread of communicable diseases. You should read Leviticus...
Anyways, it is generally accepted that modern medical science came about when Louis Pasteur demonstrated the idea that contagion passes from one individual to another. Before that it was scoffed upon.
I´m not talking about digging pit latrines in the desert... or about keeping away from feces... that goes without saying.
You´re a much better comedian than I, well done... and you certainly usher us all into a better logic. Thank you.
Is your 2nd name perhaps David? I mean we all learn through trial and error right?

I don´t much care for chopped liver Zarquon.
You´ve probably memorized vast portions of the script of the Life of Brian. You are funny.

Just a passer by wanting to note after reading some of the comments above.... You would have to be insane or completely biased, or a liar (but I'd rather not mention that), to think that FL hasn't shown here how Nick Matzke is unabashedly devoted to rhetoric and misinformation.

— Mark Studdock

It is very very apparent to those of us in the middle

that the anti-ID crowd has almost entirely resorted (a long time ago) to name-calling,

misinformation,

and statement making as their chosen weapon of argumentation.

And it is so pathetically sad...

Just a passer by wanting to note after reading some of the comments above.... You would have to be insane or completely biased, or a liar (but I'd rather not mention that), to think that FL hasn't shown here how Nick Matzke is unabashedly devoted to rhetoric and misinformation. It is very very apparent to those of us in the middle that the anti-ID crowd has almost entirely resorted (a long time ago) to name-calling, misinformation, and statement making as their chosen weapon of argumentation. And it is so pathetically sad...

Wesley, thanks for the info. I suspected that Mark Studdock was not simply a neutral observer.

On the prion point, is it significant that a prion protein does not code for the production of more prion protein in the cell.

But none of this makes the cell produce more prion protein, in either the normal or the misfolded form-

On the prion point, is it significant that a prion protein does not code for the production of more prion protein in the cell. There are genes which produce prion proteins; and a misfolded protein catalyses other proteins to also misfold. But none of this makes the cell produce more prion protein, in either the normal or the misfolded form- I guess because the cell has no mechanisms to back-translate proteins into genes. I think I'd put prions on the non-living side of the (rather vague and blurry) life/nonlife classification, whereas I'd put viruses on the living side because they carry genes that code for their own proteins.

(Prions are another story. Even if the protein-only hypothesis is correct, they could almost be conceived of as chemical toxins. The "reproduction" spoken of in this hypothesis is merely an induced change in the conformation of a second, already-formed protein molecule. Possible secondary upregulation notwithstanding, in the protein-only hypothesis, prions cannot, of course, directly cause the construction of new prions from individual amino acids. So refering to a prion protein molecule as a "microbe" or organism" would be ludicrous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prion)

FL quotes from Mike's article without making clear that some phrases (s)he quotes were actually Mike quoting Denyse, not Mike's own words.

IDC is a subset of "creationism" argumentation. Nick Matzke is entirely correct to point this out. This has been established in sworn testimony in the Kitzmiller v. DASD trial record.

— Wesley R. Elsberry

Just a passer by wanting to note after reading some of the comments above....

You would have to be insane or completely biased, or a liar (but I'd rather not mention that), to think that FL hasn't shown here how Nick Matzke is unabashedly devoted to rhetoric and misinformation.

It is very very apparent to those of us in the middle that the anti-ID crowd has almost entirely resorted (a long time ago) to name-calling,

misinformation, and statement making as their chosen weapon of argumentation. And it is so pathetically sad...

Frank: It´s pretty basic when I asked whether Raven assumes to have a higher intellectual capacity than Moses, who lived a few thousand years ago and "penned" the first 5 books of the Bible.

If "ID is creationism" as Matzke claims, why has evolutionist and vocal ID opponent Kenneth Miller been publicly called a creationist not once, but TWICE, by his fellow evolutionists?

What does one have to do with the other?

So to the book's provocation, the statement that nearly half the people in the United States don't believe in evolution. Not just any people but powerful people, people who should know better, people with too much influence over educational policy. We are not talking about Darwin's particular theory of natural selection. It is still (just) possible for a biologist to doubt its importance, and a few claim to. No, we are here talking about the fact of evolution itself, a fact that is proved utterly beyond reasonable doubt. To claim equal time for creation science in biology classes is about as sensible as to claim equal time for the flat-earth theory in astronomy classes. Or, as someone has pointed out, you might as well claim equal time in sex education classes for the stork theory. It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).

If that gives you offense, I'm sorry. You are probably not stupid, insane or wicked; and ignorance is no crime in a country with strong local traditions of interference in the freedom of biology educators to teach the central theorem of their subject. I recently toured East Coast radio stations, doing phone-ins. I came away optimistic. I had expected hostile barracking from creationists with closed minds. Instead, what I found was genuine curiosity and honest interest. I got sincere questions from intelligent people who really wanted to know because they had literally no education in evolution.

What does one have to do with the other?

— Raging Bee

Wesley, Nigel, Harold,
Come on, you guys are nitpicking and then giving one another the high five - on Mark´s comment that he´s just a passer by.
49 comments from your researched start date would mean that IF he spaced his comments out evenly since then, he would post a comment only once every two weeks. That´s good enough to be a passer by to me.
Now given the nature of the responses that one gets on this site, you would be inclined to at least check back on a post... and then there would be a little banter back and forth... so I wouldn´t consider Mark to be a regular visitor...
Your invested interests in this thread, which is at least something to hold onto is obvious. Where else would you get encouragement and pats on the back?... if not for the camaraderie, you too would be "passers by".
Never mind me... just passing through.

That´s good enough to be a passer by to me.

— Frank D.

Hey Nigel, did you miss Comment #192588 or something?

— FL

...It's clear what Mike said, it's even clear where and on what point he agreed with Denyse. You gotta quit this end-running bizness, dude!

Tell me now. If "ID is creationism" as Matzke claims, why has evolutionist and vocal ID opponent Kenneth Miller been publicly called a creationist not once, but TWICE, by his fellow evolutionists?

Frank J.,

You may want to check out this essay.

Moses, who lived a few thousand years ago and "penned" the first 5 books of the Bible.

gah! "written"
[ordinarily wouldn't bother, but "writted" just sounds... illiterate]

CJO, perhaps you´d like to comment on Raven´s statement if you´re so good at not passing by or overlooking comments...
If Raven implies that Moses was barely out of the stone age, writing simple-minded stories... then how did the Israelites fashion a golden calf... and then Pharaoh must have pursued them in his chariots with caveman-like stone wheels.
As far as Moses goes, Jesus referred to him countless times... and there is in fact more extra scriptural evidence that Jesus existed than both Julius Caesar and Napoleon, who you certainly wouldn´t doubt existed.
The fact that you question Moses´ existence is not the issue, it has more to do with your refusal to recognize the existence of a God who has revealed Himself and "penned" the writings of the Pentateuch by way of Moses... otherwise known as the Laws of Moses, or the Books of Moses.
You´re just making statements, trusting that no one from your standpoint will utter a word to your contrary, which is probably the way it will remain.

Wesley, Nigel, Harold, Come on, you guys are nitpicking and then giving one another the high five - on Mark´s comment that he´s just a passer by.

— Frank Degenaar

49 comments from your researched start date would mean that IF he spaced his comments out evenly since then, he would post a comment only once every two weeks. That´s good enough to be a passer by to me.

Now given the nature of the responses that one gets on this site, you would be inclined to at least check back on a post... and then there would be a little banter back and forth... so I wouldn´t consider Mark to be a regular visitor...

Your invested interests in this thread,

which is at least something to hold onto is obvious. Where else would you get encouragement and pats on the back?...

if not for the camaraderie, you too would be "passers by".

Never mind me...

just passing through.

Wesley,

That's actually one of 3 references in my post. I don't go into as much detail as you or Mark Isaak (another reference) but I hope to make the point that, just because the wording is a bit different, does not mean that I disagree with either of your approaches.

Wesley,

That's actually one of 3 references in my post. I don't go into as much detail as you or Mark Isaak (another reference) but I hope to make the point that, just because the wording is a bit different, does not mean that I disagree with either of your approaches.

CJO,
I thought that your grammar may have been evolving - I never once thought of illiteracy coming into play. Just kidding.

Nigel D,
Thanks for the reply. Sincerely. I apologize if I offended you. I guess I shouldn´t try to defend someone you say was "caught out".

Well, I actually liked the idea that Moses writted the books of Moses...

As far as Moses goes, Jesus referred to him countless times... and there is in fact more extra scriptural evidence that Jesus existed than both Julius Caesar and Napoleon, who you certainly wouldn´t doubt existed.

— Frank D

If Raven implies that Moses was barely out of the stone age, writing simple-minded stories... then how did the Israelites fashion a golden calf... and then Pharaoh must have pursued them in his chariots with caveman-like stone wheels.

As far as Moses goes, Jesus referred to him countless times... and there is in fact more extra scriptural evidence that Jesus existed than both Julius Caesar and Napoleon, who you certainly wouldn´t doubt existed.

The fact that you question Moses´ existence is not the issue, it has more to do with your refusal to recognize the existence of a God who has revealed Himself and "penned" the writings of the Pentateuch by way of Moses... otherwise known as the Laws of Moses, or the Books of Moses. You´re just making statements, trusting that no one from your standpoint will utter a word to your contrary, which is probably the way it will remain.

I am curious about that "extra scriptural" evidence for the existence of Jesus, I must confess.

Re "We're looking for extra-scriptural evidence for Moses' existence"

Movie "The Ten Commandments", with C. Heston.

Movie "History of the World, Part 1", with M. Brooks.

Next question? ;)

The Talk.Origins post on ID and creationism that I refer to above.

Presenting students with strengths and weaknesses of any theory should be a fairly commonplace occurrence in any educational institution. From what I gather, "Explore Evolution" was created by ID proponents but does not explicitly support ID or Creationism. So what is the problem? Anyone who vaguely claims to value science should celebrate this! The last time I checked, science produced verifiable results, considered new discoveries, endured ruthless peer reviews and always invited criticism.
The fact that Evolutionists are all up-in-arms about a book that allows students to question the theories that they have been taught is counter-productive to our enduring pursuit of knowledge. If evolution is indeed a fact, as it is presented in the classroom, then the concept should be able to withstand this kind of scrutiny. However, the Theory of Evolution is just that...a theory. It seems to me that the opinions and attitudes of evolutionist have become more dogmatic than scientific these days.

I find it funny that those who are always so quick to dismiss anything that could possibly be associated with "religion" become most indignant when someone attempts to question the "sacred cow" of evolution.

However, the Theory of Evolution is just that...a theory.

The ID is free to criticize evolution any time they want. They do so. They write books, publish a pseudoscience journal, run a website, give invited talks, and so on. Free country after all.

So far nothing they have said has made much sense. They aren't really even trying anymore.

What they can't do is indoctrinate other peoples kids in science classes. Which was always their real goal anyway.

So Shay, when are you going to invite scientists to your church to teach the scientific background for the real world? There is a lot in biology, astronomy, geology, and paleontology that has been discovered in the last 200 years. Six months worth would be a good start. After all, what can it hurt to hear an alternative viewpoint?

Shay M: "The last time I checked, science produced verifiable results, considered new discoveries, endured ruthless peer reviews and always invited criticism."

Evolution has fulfilled all of these criteria.

Please show where ID has fulfilled any of these requirements.

Thanks in advance.

Harold,
tsk tsk... do I really have to spoon-feed you? Just because Moses is not the topic of the board, doesn´t mean that I can´t respond to a comment Raven made about simple-minded stories being written by sheepherders barely out of the stone age. You are obviously not with the program, since Raven was not comparing two ages, but rather making whimsical comments about something he didn´t bargain anyone would answer. Of course when you make a mockery in the way he did, you´d expect an answer from someone such as me.
There there Harold, don´t get bent all out of shape about me answering to inadvertent attacks on what I believe... after all, I didn´t instigate the attacks on religion that are on this page... and if you´d rather not hear anything from me, then you should ask every one of this page´s contributers to kindly refrain from making remarks about religion that have no basis.
I on the other hand am fine with seeing all kinds of injustices that are written on this page and needn´t comment on everything... I´m not under any illusion that I´ll in the slightest change anyones opinion... so quit pouting like I´m hurting your feelings.
In fact your arguments are self incriminating when you selectively ask ME not to talk about religion... when it comes as a rebuttal to a few absurdities I´ve come across on this board, which by the way have nothing to do with science.
You wrote, "If you believe that science conflicts with your own religious beliefs, this is one place where you can discuss that, if you can handle doing so." Make up your mind Harold.
I recognize a solid argument when it has a foundation (even when I don´t agree with it), which is the case with a lot of the material I see on this site... and it has even more weight considering that you have the presence of protein scientists like Nigel D and the likes... but you seem to selectively ignore what is intended to be poetic mockery, since it by no means threatens your standpoint.
Maybe I should ban myself from this board... so that I don´t have to answer some of the ludicrous things I see written here by select individuals... and as a result - some really worthwhile discussion wouldn´t be disjointed by having to scroll pages to follow a topic.
I´m sure you may agree at least in part - that even someone who agrees with your standpoint, should not have poetic license on a page so sternly focussed on the facts as you infer. If you´re going to scold me for not sticking to the norm then perhaps you should take a wider look at some of the often overlooked creative writings of many others on this page.

Just because Moses is not the topic of the board, doesn´t mean that I can´t respond to a comment Raven made about simple-minded stories being written by sheepherders barely out of the stone age.

Presenting students with strengths and weaknesses of any theory should be a fairly commonplace occurrence in any educational institution.

— Shay M

From what I gather, "Explore Evolution" was created by ID proponents but does not explicitly support ID or Creationism. So what is the problem?

Anyone who vaguely claims to value science should celebrate this!

The last time I checked, science produced verifiable results, considered new discoveries, endured ruthless peer reviews and always invited criticism.

The fact that Evolutionists are all up-in-arms about a book that allows students to question the theories that they have been taught is counter-productive to our enduring pursuit of knowledge.

If evolution is indeed a fact, as it is presented in the classroom, then the concept should be able to withstand this kind of scrutiny.

However, the Theory of Evolution is just that...a theory.

It seems to me that the opinions and attitudes of evolutionist have become more dogmatic than scientific these days.

I find it funny that those who are always so quick to dismiss anything that could possibly be associated with "religion" become most indignant when someone attempts to question the "sacred cow" of evolution.

From what I gather, "Explore Evolution" was created by ID proponents but does not explicitly support ID or Creationism. So what is the problem?

So what is the problem?

— Shay M

However, the Theory of Evolution is just that...a theory.

The fact that Evolutionists are all up-in-arms about a book that allows students to question the theories that they have been taught is counter-productive to our enduring pursuit of knowledge. If evolution is indeed a fact, as it is presented in the classroom, then the concept should be able to withstand this kind of scrutiny.

Every crank thinks he has found a "weakness" of science or history or whatever his subject is. There is certainly no rule that schools are obliged to teach the alleged "weakness".

Frank D: You made a lot if ignorant statements; we took the time to point out how those statements were wrong; and instead of acknowledging what we said and engaging with it, you ignored all of it and have now reverted to mocking us as ignorant and emotional, pretending to be the injured party, and pretending to be superior. Can we take this change-of-subject as an admission that you know you've lost the argument you started?

To be fair, maybe they should let scientists and atheists critique their religion and creation myths in church on sunday.

Homo habilis anyone? Oops, another one bites the dust.

(I figure 30 minutes should be long enough to dissect the hapless vict --- err, dialogue and interact in depth with their presentation.) FL :)

Homo habilis anyone? Oops, another one bites the dust.

— Les

Just once I would like to see these hypocrits walk their talk and move to some fourth world dump without electricity, running water, medical care, or stores.

— Raven

Homo habilis anyone? Oops, another one bites the dust.

Presenting students with strengths and weaknesses of any theory should be a fairly commonplace occurrence in any educational institution. From what I gather, "Explore Evolution" was created by ID proponents but does not explicitly support ID or Creationism. So what is the problem? Anyone who vaguely claims to value science should celebrate this!

The last time I checked, science produced verifiable results, considered new discoveries, endured ruthless peer reviews and always invited criticism.

The fact that Evolutionists are all up-in-arms about a book that allows students to question the theories that they have been taught is counter-productive to our enduring pursuit of knowledge.

If evolution is indeed a fact, as it is presented in the classroom, then the concept should be able to withstand this kind of scrutiny.

However, the Theory of Evolution is just that...a theory. It seems to me that the opinions and attitudes of evolutionist have become more dogmatic than scientific these days.

I find it funny that those who are always so quick to dismiss anything that could possibly be associated with "religion" become most indignant when someone attempts to question the "sacred cow" of evolution.

However, the Theory of Evolution is just that...a theory. It seems to me that the opinions and attitudes of evolutionist have become more dogmatic than scientific these days.

About Moses, people--
Apparently Jewish men named Cohen (and some related names) who, according to Jewish tradition, are descended from Moses's brother Aaron, are very likely to have the same Y chromosome. Hence, there is some slim extra-scriptural evidence that Moses was a real person.
May I suggest that trying to prove biblical figures didn't exist is pointless? Even if there were iron-clad evidence that every historical figure in the bible actually lived, their creation story would still be wrong and the theory of evolution would still be confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt.

However, the Theory of Evolution is just that...a theory

And if it's prebiotic evolution, it's just a hypothesis (not even a theory) --- with generous dollops of unproven speculations to provide some necessary filler!

And if it's prebiotic evolution, it's just a hypothesis (not even a theory) --- with generous dollops of unproven speculations to provide some necessary filler!

Homo habilis anyone? Oops, another one bites the dust.

And if it's prebiotic evolution, it's just a hypothesis (not even a theory) --- with generous dollops of unproven speculations to provide some necessary filler!

OT: There's an interesting article about pseudogenes, or more specifically about a pseudogene which had been claimed to have a function, here:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/08/060801230141.htm

Glen D

hoary puccoon wrote: Apparently Jewish men named Cohen (and some related names) who, according to Jewish tradition, are descended from Moses's brother Aaron, are very likely to have the same Y chromosome. Hence, there is some slim extra-scriptural evidence that Moses was a real person.

Whoa! "Borat" could be evidence that Moses existed. He still evolved, though.

Thanks for the reply. Sincerely. I apologize if I offended you. I guess I shouldn´t try to defend someone you say was "caught out".

— Frank Degenaar

"Borat" could be evidence that Moses existed. He still evolved, though.

— hoary pucoon

Nigel D--
I realized that after I posted. I was hoping nobody would catch it. Maybe I should go work for the Disco Institute. They seem to get away with saying anything.

prions tests my inner peace

"Either that talks against" - Whether that talks against...

Presenting students with strengths and weaknesses of any theory should be a fairly commonplace occurrence in any educational institution.

However, the Theory of Evolution is just that...a theory.

Homo habilis anyone?

First off, let me say that I appreciate such prompt and (mostly) constructive responses to my post!

My dear Raven---there are problems within the Theory of Evolution that do deserve to be considered (see http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm). Germ Theory is a different story. These "theorized" germs still exist today. Vaccines and antibiotics can be and are tested and are often proven effective. Germ theory is not heavily dependant on subjective interpretations of an incomplete fossil record. I could continue, but I hope you see where this is going.

I would also appreciate it if you would refrain from commenting on my personal life, which you have no way of knowing anything about. You have no idea if I even attend a church, much less if I invite scientists there to teach them "the scientific background for the real world." But then again, I suppose it's much easier for you to be dismissive of something (yes, even concrete evidence and very plausible explanations that don't necessarily come into alignment with what you believe) if you can somehow slap the label of religion on it. Religion, my friend, is for the most part beyond the scope of science...which is why neither ID nor Creationism is forced upon students by EE. Besides, a certain degree of faith is involved in any theory that attempts to explain the origins of universe and things in them...so don't go throwing stones in glass houses, it is not wise. Prejudice is the key to this whole argument. Just because EE was produced by ID proponents, it must be filled with "ignorance" and "regressive thought" right?

Despite our best scientific and medical efforts, the mortality rate has been and currently remains at 100%...weather we catch one of those silly little germs or not! Remember, we don't know all there is to know and there is absolutely no reason we should become closed-minded and complacent in our scientific thinking, nor should we encourage our future generations to do the same by not promoting the criticism of theories. I'm sure that many people thought the round-earth theory was not worth considering a few centuries ago. Only today, the Church is not the persecuting party of those who decide to think outside the proverbial box of the day's conventional thought.

Cheryl---I am referring to the fact that people (particularly evolutionists) are outraged by the fact that kids at school are being encouraged to examine evidence that does not necessarily support evolution or evidence that points to fallacies within the theory. If Evolution has fulfilled all of my aforementioned criteria, why are people threatened by the introduction of "Explore Evolution"? If there is so much faith in the theory, then why not allow it to be tested and questioned in our schools? It should be able to stand on its own two feet right ;)

The very existence of ID and Creationism is a tribute to it's adherence to the scientific method. I really would be here all night if I wanted to personally give you a complete and thorough response to your request, but here are some interesting articles I've found that address the requirements in question.

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/NCBQ3_3HarrisCalvert.pdf
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ12.html#wp1619382
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=57 (also the inspiration for last line in my previous post!)
You may also find this website of some interest- http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/

Although I wish I had more time address every individual concern, I do not. I will, however, try to at least post some general feedback to those who did take the time to respond to my comment.

Cheers!

P. S. Thanks for the input FL ;)

My dear Raven---there are problems within the Theory of Evolution that do deserve to be considered (see http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm).

— Some Guy who apparently believed he had stumbled onto something original and thoughtworthy

Pastor Bentonit, FCD~

Sticks and stones may break my bones...

You see? Two can play these childish games ;)

Raging Bee,
Your use of the royal "we" is revealing.
I prefer spending time with my wife than commenting on absolutely everything that is directed at me. You do, of course understand that time does not permit - just as many of my comments have gone unaccounted for.
I will refrain from giving a reply as I initially intended, since your conclusions have nothing of substance other than on a "raging" emotional level.

First off, let me say that I appreciate such prompt and (mostly) constructive responses to my post!

— Shay M

My dear Raven---there are problems within the Theory of Evolution that do deserve to be considered (see http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm).

Germ Theory is a different story.

These "theorized" germs still exist today.

Vaccines and antibiotics can be and are tested and are often proven effective.

Germ theory is not heavily dependant on subjective interpretations of an incomplete fossil record.

I could continue, but I hope you see where this is going.

I would also appreciate it if you would refrain from commenting on my personal life, which you have no way of knowing anything about. You have no idea if I even attend a church, much less if I invite scientists there to teach them "the scientific background for the real world."

But then again, I suppose it's much easier for you to be dismissive of something (yes, even concrete evidence and very plausible explanations that don't necessarily come into alignment with what you believe) if you can somehow slap the label of religion on it.

Religion, my friend, is for the most part beyond the scope of science...which is why neither ID nor Creationism is forced upon students by EE.

Besides, a certain degree of faith is involved in any theory that attempts to explain the origins of universe and things in them...

so don't go throwing stones in glass houses, it is not wise. Prejudice is the key to this whole argument.

Just because EE was produced by ID proponents, it must be filled with "ignorance" and "regressive thought" right?

Despite our best scientific and medical efforts, the mortality rate has been and currently remains at 100%...

weather

we catch one of those silly little germs or not!

Remember, we don't know all there is to know and there is absolutely no reason we should become closed-minded and complacent in our scientific thinking, nor should we encourage our future generations to do the same by not promoting the criticism of theories.

I'm sure that many people thought the round-earth theory was not worth considering a few centuries ago.

Only today, the Church is not the persecuting party of those who decide to think outside the proverbial box of the day's conventional thought.

Cheryl---I am referring to the fact that people (particularly evolutionists) are outraged by the fact that kids at school are being encouraged to examine evidence that does not necessarily support evolution or evidence that points to fallacies within the theory.

If Evolution has fulfilled all of my aforementioned criteria, why are people threatened by the introduction of "Explore Evolution"?

If there is so much faith in the theory, then why not allow it to be tested and questioned in our schools?

It should be able to stand on its own two feet right ;)

The very existence of ID and Creationism is a tribute to it's adherence to the scientific method.

I really would be here all night if I wanted to personally give you a complete and thorough response to your request, but here are some interesting articles I've found that address the requirements in question. http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/ http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/NCBQ3_3H... http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ12.... http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=57 (also the inspiration for last line in my previous post!) You may also find this website of some interest- http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/

Although I wish I had more time address every individual concern, I do not. I will, however, try to at least post some general feedback to those who did take the time to respond to my comment.

Shay M wrote: Germ Theory is a different story. These "theorized" germs still exist today. Vaccines and antibiotics can be and are tested and are often proven effective. Germ theory is not heavily dependant on subjective interpretations of an incomplete fossil record. I could continue, but I hope you see where this is going.

Religion, my friend, is for the most part beyond the scope of science...which is why neither ID nor Creationism is forced upon students by EE. Besides, a certain degree of faith is involved in any theory that attempts to explain the origins of universe and things in them...so don't go throwing stones in glass houses, it is not wise. Prejudice is the key to this whole argument. Just because EE was produced by ID proponents, it must be filled with "ignorance" and "regressive thought" right?

Despite our best scientific and medical efforts, the mortality rate has been and currently remains at 100%...weather we catch one of those silly little germs or not! Remember, we don't know all there is to know and there is absolutely no reason we should become closed-minded and complacent in our scientific thinking, nor should we encourage our future generations to do the same by not promoting the criticism of theories. I'm sure that many people thought the round-earth theory was not worth considering a few centuries ago. Only today, the Church is not the persecuting party of those who decide to think outside the proverbial box of the day's conventional thought.

Cheryl---I am referring to the fact that people (particularly evolutionists) are outraged by the fact that kids at school are being encouraged to examine evidence that does not necessarily support evolution or evidence that points to fallacies within the theory. If Evolution has fulfilled all of my aforementioned criteria, why are people threatened by the introduction of "Explore Evolution"? If there is so much faith in the theory, then why not allow it to be tested and questioned in our schools? It should be able to stand on its own two feet right ;)

The very existence of ID and Creationism is a tribute to it's adherence to the scientific method. I really would be here all night if I wanted to personally give you a complete and thorough response to your request, but here are some interesting articles I've found that address the requirements in question.

Wow, that has got to be the lamest "proof" for the existence of Moses that I have ever seen. A fictional character in a popular sequel to a previous book of fiction happens to mention one of the main characters from said previous work of fiction and you consider that to be a compelling argument? Boggles the mind, really.

— Wolfhound

here are some interesting articles I've found that address the requirements in question.

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/NCBQ3_3H…
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ12.…
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=57 (also the inspiration for last line in my previous post!)
You may also find this website of some interest- http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/

"No serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus." - Otto Betz

— Frank Degenaar

After reading back through Shay M's and FL's posts, I am totally convinced. Yes!! We SHOULD teach the controversy!!!
I propose a second auxillary teaching aid, tentatively titled, "Designs on our Children" which will present the TRUE controversy between MET and the anti-evolutionists!!
Let's make sure our kids understand enough to make informed choices!!!
So here goes--
"Designs on Our Children"
Chapter 1: "Quote-mining: Slander or Just Plain Lies?"
Chapter 2: "Moving the Goalposts: How to be a Weasel without the Benefit of Natural Selection"
Chapter 3: "The Gish Gallop" (or--hat tip to FL-- Dissecting the Victim)
Students will be shown a video of a creationist throwing out misinformation faster than a scientist can respond, and invited to count the lies and logical fallacies on each side of the debate.
Chapter 4: "Christian Dominionism: Has the Constitution of the United States Outlived its Usefulness?"

Shay M and FL, I'm counting on you guys to get behind this. If you want schoolchildren to make informed choices about evolution, let's give them ALL the information!!! Right???Well, okay, we can leave out the details of Ted Haggard's little problem and that unfortunate misunderstanding between "Dr." Dino and the IRS, but the SCIENTIFIC TRUTH about creationism should be presented, right??? Because you don't want people to think your anti-evolutionist stance is just a "sacred cow," now do you?

Shay M,

Glad you returned. I see that you link to anti-evolution positions from ID to Hovind. Yet curiously I see nothing yet about which of the mutually contradictory anti-evolution positions you personally favor. Do you agree with Michael Behe that life has a ~4 billion year history and is related by common descent, Hugh Ross, who agrees with the ~4 billion years but not the common descent, or the YECs who think that life has only been around for a few thousand years?

Even if you are unsure (which can't be if you really think it's about the science), please take a best guess. Then tell us if you have any plans to debate those creationists whose positions are as different from yours as evolution is (which you would surely want to do if you really think it's about the science).

Memo to Hoary Puccoon:

Yes, 'teaching the controversy' is somewhere on my Insidious To-Do List. However, don't forget the context of my dissect--I mean dialoging statement.

That wasn't about 'teaching the controversy' but about Raven's suggestion of having "scientists and atheists" stop by the church to offer critiques of the Bible and such.
That, is where the dissection would come in. (Even here on PT, Bible critiques just AIN'T you guys' strong suit!)

I'm reckoning 30 minutes of Q and A should be sufficient to finish the barbecue --- oops, I mean finish the business.

FL

. . . That wasn't about 'teaching the controversy' but about Raven's suggestion of having "scientists and atheists" stop by the church to offer critiques of the Bible and such.

— FL

That, is where the dissection would come in. (Even here on PT, Bible critiques just AIN'T you guys' strong suit!)

I'm reckoning 30 minutes of Q and A should be sufficient to finish the barbecue --- oops, I mean finish the business.

Frank Degenaar inexplicably wrote: As it turns out, Moses possessed a higher degree of education and literary skill than Raven, who seems to think himself superior because he came into our technologically advanced world of late.

Science Avenger, it looks to me like Frank D has conflated ignorance with stupidity.

It's easily done, especially upon reading some of the posts in this thread that have regurgitated the old many-times-refuted creo arguments.

Frank Degenaar inexplicably wrote: As it turns out, Moses possessed a higher degree of education and literary skill than Raven, who seems to think himself superior because he came into our technologically advanced world of late.

Raven, why are you arguing with Frank over the education and sophistication of a fictional character?

No way, man. 'Cos, as soon as you've shot down our first three points, we'll go right back to the first one and start banging on about that one again.

— Nigel D.

Um, Frank, with all due respect, what the f*ck are you talking about?

— Science

Sorry guys, if anyone is able to retrieve a post and adjust a tag quote, you´d be able to see what I had written above.
If you´d teach me how to do so, then I would indeed be standing on the shoulders of some comparative KwickXML giants. Excuse the joke.

But remember, Moses started out as a basket case and in de Nile.

FL-
If you check back to my post #194585, you'll see I'm not in favor of over-the-top biblical critiques.

Actually I'm pretty far to the right in thinking the bible is largely a record of historical events. It is not, however, scientifically accurate. And how could it be? The bible hasn't changed in hundreds of years, while science changes constantly as new facts emerge.

Biology has lately been one of the most successful and dynamic fields in science, thanks largely to the framework provided by the theory of evolution. There is no debate whatsoever in the scientific community that evolution really happened in the past and continues to happen today. Students need to be told that.

If you, personally, want to believe that the bible is literally true in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary, you are entitled to do so. If you want to invite scientists into your church in order to be obnoxious to them you are free to do that. You are not legally free to invade American public schools and interfere with children trying to get an education and biology teachers trying to do their jobs.

And, finally, may I ask why it is that so many hard-core biblical literalists treat "thou shalt not lie" as merely a poetic suggestion?

Next question? ;)

— On the 9th of August, in comment 194317,Henry J.

it has taken you about 4 days to come up with your latest answer.

So... once a point is shot down, you´ll go back to the start and keep banging on and on and on and on and on and on. This reveals the mindset so prevalent on this page.

Raven, why are you arguing with Frank over the education and sophistication of a fictional character?

The royal "we" is once again very telling.

— Frank Degenaar

So... once a point is shot down, you´ll go back to the start and keep banging on and on and on and on and on and on.

This reveals the mindset so prevalent on this page.

No way, man. 'Cos, as soon as you've shot down our first three points, we'll go right back to the first one and start banging on about that one again. -nigel d.

. . . The last few rebuttals to my post are becoming more unthinking by the day.

There is a difference between knowledge and wisdom... for example, you know how to use search engines to find out who Otto Betz is, but you lack the wisdom to do so.

There is a difference between knowledge and genius... a difference between knowledge (which lends to the racking up of facts) and intelligence... a difference between accumulated knowledge (having stood on the shoulders of giants) and using that knowledge with wisdom.

Take away your internet and you would be devastated...

prove your intelligence by what you do with what you´re presented.

At least, you should commend those giants instead of mocking them.

Undermine the giants on whose shoulders you stand... and you become a self-proclaimed, living, walking and talking contradiction.

Given that two of those were obviously jokes (including the one you quoted), I don't see what your point is.

— Henry J

Oh, now I get it... hahaha!

Nigel, the comment about the internet was directed at Raven... I thought it unnecessary to distinguish between the two of you, in light of your use of the royal "we"...
Standing on the shoulders of giants was directed at "Science Avenger" - who´s name by the way is the funniest thing I´ve seen on this page to date.
Maybe I should write a "LOL" every time I kill myself laughing on this page... by the way, I did get the jokes and they brought a smile to my face. I have a more encompassing sense of humor than you would care to admit.
I took the time to distinguish between knowledge, intelligence and wisdom... for not once did I claim that Moses had more knowledge than anyone on this page (although I may definitely have a point there)... go back and take a look at what I´ve written with your fine-tooth-comb.
Have a great day.

"If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of Giants."

— Science Avenger quoting Isaac Newton

Frank Degenaar Isn´t "Science Avenger´s" quoting Isaac Newton just a tad bit curious... that of quoting a Creation Scientist. I think that aptly infers that the evolutionists are standing on the shoulders of Creation Scientists(the bulk of Science that Evolutionists have their hands on these days, has it´s foundation from Creationist Scientists). That´s like biting the hand that feeds you

Well, of course Newton was a creationist. Every scientist of his time was a creationist. Charles Darwin was a creationist, himself-- until the weight of evidence proved to him that special creation just hadn't happened.

There is only one thing separating scientific creationists like Isaac Newton and the young Charles Darwin from modern IDers. That's honesty. Well, probably intelligence, too. But the main thing is that Newton and Darwin refused to fudge data to make it fit into their pre-conceived ideas.

The modern creationist movements are larded through and dripping with lies, prevarications, and, all too often, slanderous misstatements about legitimate scientists.

Modern evolutionary biologists stand on the shoulders of giants. IDers and so-called "scientific" creationists stand on a dunghill of shame.

You should also note, Frank, that while Newton was a christian philosopher as well as a great physicist and mathematician, he mostly kept philosophical views out of his scientific publications. He also enhanced christian philosophy of the time with his rationalism. You see, as one of the greatest thinkers in the enlightenment, Newton strove to replace the simple answer of "Goddidit" from the dark ages with, "God did it in a rational way that we can understand and describe if we observe a particular phenomenon and put our reason to work" which is totally different as one encourages ignorance while the other encourages investigation. Modern day creation "scientists" hardly encourage investigation and are only content in everyone believing their interpretation of what God did as described in the Bible, and any observation and resulting reasoning that contradicts their literal interpretation is wrong.

Isn´t "Science Avenger´s" quoting Isaac Newton just a tad bit curious... that of quoting a Creation Scientist. I think that aptly infers that the evolutionists are standing on the shoulders of Creation Scientists(the bulk of Science that Evolutionists have their hands on these days, has it´s foundation from Creationist Scientists). That´s like biting the hand that feeds you

RULE I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain, and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity, and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes. RULE II. Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes. As to respiration in a man and in a beast; the descent of stones in Europe and in America; the light of our culinary fire and of the sun; the reflection of light in the earth, and in the planets. RULE III. The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intension nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever. For since the qualities of bodies are only known to us by experiments, we are to hold for universal all such as universally agree with experiments; and such as are not liable to diminution can never be quite taken away. We are certainly not to relinquish the evidence of experiments for the sake of dreams and vain fictions of our own devising; nor are we to recede from the analogy of Nature, which uses to be simple, and always consonant to itself. We no other way know the extension of bodies than by our senses, nor do these reach it in all bodies; but because we perceive extension in all that are sensible, therefore we ascribe it universally to all others also. That abundance of bodies are hard, we learn by experience; and because the hardness of the whole arises from the hardness of the parts, we therefore justly infer the hardness of the undivided particles not only of the bodies we feel but of all others. That all bodies are impenetrable, we gather not from reason, but from sensation. The bodies which we handle we find impenetrable, and thence conclude impenetrability to be an universal property of all bodies whatsoever. That all bodies are moveable, and endowed with certain powers (which we call the vires inertiæ) of persevering in their motion, or in their rest we only infer from the like properties observed in the bodies which we have seen. The extension, hardness, impenetrability, mobility, and vis inertiæ of the whole, result from the extension hardness, impenetrability, mobility, and vires inertiæ of the parts; and thence we conclude the least particles of all bodies to be also all extended, and hard and impenetrable, and moveable, and endowed with their proper vires inertiæ. And this is the foundation of all philosophy. Moreover, that the divided but contiguous particles of bodies may be separated from one another, is matter of observation; and, in the particles that remain undivided, our minds are able to distinguish yet lesser parts, as is mathematically demonstrated. But whether the parts so distinguished, and not yet divided, may, by the powers of Nature, be actually divided and separated from one another, we cannot certainly determine. Yet, had we the proof of but one experiment that any undivided particle, in breaking a hard and solid body, offered a division, we might by virtue of this rule conclude that the undivided as well as the divided particles may be divided and actually separated to infinity. Lastly, if it universally appears, by experiments and astronomical observations, that all bodies about the earth gravitate towards the earth, and that in proportion to the quantity of matter which they severally contain, that the moon likewise, according to the quantity of its matter, gravitates towards the earth; that, on the other hand, our sea gravitates towards the moon; and all the planets mutually one towards another; and the comets in like manner towards the sun; we must, in consequence of this rule, universally allow that all bodies whatsoever are endowed with a principle of mutual gravitation. For the argument from the appearances concludes with more force for the universal gravitation of all bodies that for their impenetrability; of which, among those in the celestial regions, we have no experiments, nor any manner of observation. Not that I affirm gravity to be essential to bodies: by their vis insita I mean nothing but their vis inertiæ. This is immutable. Their gravity is diminished as they recede from the earth. RULE IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phænomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, till such time as other phænomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions. This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.

Should have said "...kept his christian philosophical views out..." in that first sentence of comment 195838. Newton's naturalist philosophy and rationalism were very important in his scientific work.

I'm not exactly a Newton scholar, but I do remember learning that his religious beliefs were anything but standard Christianity. He wrote much more about astrology and alchemy than about what we call regular, classical physics, and his quirky take on religion made him an awkward fit at Cambridge at the time. Anyway, this just bolsters the point made already that we remember Newton for his good, solid, scientific work and not for his religious predilections.

Glen D--
Thanks for the long quotation from Newton.
His Rule III is clearly the intellectual forebear of Charles Lyell's principle of uniformitarianism, which, as you probably know, says that you can study the geology of the past by observing the forces (volcanism, erosion, sedimentation) at work in the present. This was an extremely important underpinning of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.
It's ironic that Frank D is castigating modern scientists for quoting Newton and also accepting evolution, while creationists like Answers in Genesis are basing their entire argument on repudiating Newton's rules, saying 'you can't know if you weren't there.'

Nigel, the comment about the internet was directed at Raven...

— Frank Degenaar

I thought it unnecessary to distinguish between the two of you, in light of your use of the royal "we"...

Standing on the shoulders of giants was directed at "Science Avenger" - who´s name by the way is the funniest thing I´ve seen on this page to date.

Maybe I should write a "LOL" every time I kill myself laughing on this page...

by the way, I did get the jokes and they brought a smile to my face.

I have a more encompassing sense of humor than you would care to admit.

I took the time to distinguish between knowledge, intelligence and wisdom... for not once did I claim that Moses had more knowledge than anyone on this page (although I may definitely have a point there)... go back and take a look at what I´ve written with your fine-tooth-comb.

Moses possessed a higher degree of education and literary skill than Raven

There is only one thing separating scientific creationists like Isaac Newton and the young Charles Darwin from modern IDers. That's honesty. Well, probably intelligence, too.

Also, I wouldn't qualify Isaac Newton a creation scientist so much as he was a scientist that happened to be a devout christian... It is well established that Newton valued reason above all in understanding how the world works and believed that an non-interventionist God had created the universe using...

— J. Biggs

"scientific" creationists stand on a dunghill of shame.

— Hoary Pucoon

Frank Denegaar--
No, that wasn't an attempt at humor, Frank. I really do feel absolute contempt for you and your kind. You came on this thread posing as a simple searcher after truth. I an others answered you sympatheically, in that spirit.
Since then you have shown your true colors as a devious manipulator whose only real goal in being here is to derail a discussion of Explore Evolution, which might, had you not intervened, led to useful ideas for responding to that mess.
I hope and trust the Disco Institute or other plotters against the United States constitution paid you well for your contemptible behavior. You have abused the courtesy of this site, you have abused the good will of many honest people here, and, in my opinion, you have abused everything Jesus of Nazareth preached and stood for.
I for one will no longer respond to anything you post here. Go back to your dunghill, troll.
P.S. No, this is not a joke.

Two things: honesty and intelligence. And (in the case of the snake-oil salesmen)lust for money and power. Three things: honesty, intelligence, lust for money and power, and a fanatical devotion to the Bible... I'll come in again.

— fnxtr

I'm assuming my previous post addressed to Frank D. will be removed by the administration before many of you see it.
Before I am entirely banned from posting on PT, I would like to address some remarks to the, (drum roll, please) ORIGINAL TOPIC OF THIS THREAD.
In a post above I made a fascetious suggestion that there be a second supplemental book called Designs on Our Children. But really, if the ID wants Explore Evolution to be treated seriously as science, they should have no objection to the NCSE or other responsible scientists putting out at least a teacher's manual seriously examining Explore Evolution *as science.*
I suspect creationists have let their egos get puffed by the sight of legitimate scientists being snowed under with the 'Gish Gallop' presented by a trained orator in front of a claque of true believers.
The results may be quite different when Explore Evolution is examined by biology teachers who are sincerely dedicated to teaching science, not pushing religion into public schools. All the misstatements, mined quotes, and logical fallacies will be on the table.
'Teaching the controversy' done in an honest way, could be the best thing that ever happened to science education in America.

Newton was a giant of science.

I'm assuming my previous post addressed to Frank D. will be removed by the administration before many of you see it.

— Hoary Puccoon

Before I am entirely banned from posting on PT, I would like to address some remarks to the, (drum roll, please) ORIGINAL TOPIC OF THIS THREAD.

In a post above I made a fascetious suggestion that there be a second supplemental book called Designs on Our Children. But really, if the ID wants Explore Evolution to be treated seriously as science, they should have no objection to the NCSE or other responsible scientists putting out at least a teacher's manual seriously examining Explore Evolution *as science.*

I suspect creationists have let their egos get puffed by the sight of legitimate scientists being snowed under with the 'Gish Gallop' presented by a trained orator in front of a claque of true believers.

The results may be quite different when Explore Evolution is examined by biology teachers who are sincerely dedicated to teaching science, not pushing religion into public schools. All the misstatements, mined quotes, and logical fallacies will be on the table. 'Teaching the controversy' done in an honest way, could be the best thing that ever happened to science education in America.

Nigel D--
No, I meant claque: "a group of persons hired to applaud an act or performance" or "a group of syncophants," as my dictionary defines it.
I haven't seen Explore Evolution. Based on Paul Nelson's posts on PT, it won't be nearly as sophisticated as Dembski, so the arguments should be simpler to understand and to refute.
I would work on this myself, but I'm not a scientist. On the other hand, if anyone knows how to get a copy of EE, I'd be willing to put together a rough draft for comments by evolutionary biologists.

Hey, I just learned a new word. Thanks, Hoary Puccoon.

I think, to rebut the arguments in EE (I also have not seen a copy, but I can deduce the quality of scholarship it contains from what I know of its authors and sponsors), all we need to do is a copy-and-paste job from Talk Origins.

And then try to simplfy a bit to make it easier for high-school students to grasp first time.

Frank Degenaar wrote: ... what are you trying to say Mr. Biggs?

I think, to rebut the arguments in EE (I also have not seen a copy, but I can deduce the quality of scholarship it contains from what I know of its authors and sponsors), all we need to do is a copy-and-paste job from Talk Origins.

I think, to rebut the arguments in EE (I also have not seen a copy, but I can deduce the quality of scholarship it contains from what I know of its authors and sponsors), all we need to do is a copy-and-paste job from Talk Origins.

There's a start on an "Explore Evolution Companion", and the open discussion forum already has the run-through of EE recycled creation science arguments linked to the Index of Creationist Claims.

FL,

If they did a global swap and replaced every mention of intelligent design with "teach the controversy", would I have to read Of Pandas and People again?

Of course you should read a book before criticizing it. Only two problems with that. One, creaationists never seem to read the scientific literature they are critical of. Two, creationist arguments never seem to change, only the buzz words. No real new ideas in 150 years. Still using the same old discredited Paley argument and not because it proves anything either. As long as the arguments have already been addressed, doesn't that in itself show that the arguments haven't really changed in this "new" book? And even if there is anything reaally new, it won't take long for the archive to contain a stinging rebuttal.

Get into the lab and do some science. Maybe then there will be something new to discuss.

FL: if a book promises, in the first chapter, to "prove" something I know to be false, and if all of its fans praise it for "proving" something the rest of us know to be false, there's no need to read it any further. We know it's crap, therefore we kick it to the curb.

Besides, you yourself show no signs of having read EE either. So who are you to pretend you're the smartest guy in the room?

I really do feel absolute contempt for you and your kind.

— Hoary Pucoon

You came on this thread posing as a simple searcher after truth.

— Hoary Pucoon

Since then you have shown your true colors as a devious manipulator whose only real goal in being here is to derail a discussion of Explore Evolution, which might, had you not intervened, led to useful ideas for responding to that mess.

— Hoary Pucoon

I hope and trust the Disco Institute or other plotters against the United States constitution paid you well for your contemptible behavior.

— Hoary Pucoon

You have abused the courtesy of this site, you have abused the good will of many honest people here, and, in my opinion, you have abused everything Jesus of Nazareth preached and stood for.

— Hoary Pucoon

I for one will no longer respond to anything you post here. Go back to your dunghill, troll. P.S. No, this is not a joke.

— Hoary Pucoon

Besides, you yourself show no signs of having read EE either.

Nigel D.,
correct, I did write this: "Moses possessed a higher degree of education and literary skill than Raven".
Thanks for taking the time to find it.
I also talked about the difference between mere knowledge and wisdom.
Through education or instruction you may acquire wisdom and knowledge... but wisdom or intelligence do not come automatically. That is to say that some people after having "completed their formal education" may in practice be utterly bereft of the desired benefits or purpose thereof. Let me point out that I also talked about intellectual capacity - which Raven assumes to have a higher level thereof. There`s no way to compare Moses and Raven in this area... nevertheless I would bet my bottom dollar on an assumed certainty, come to think of it, that Moses has a higher intellectual capacity than Raven, despite being a simple-minded sheepherder as Raven puts it.
Perhaps we should ask Raven to lay his credentials on the table, other than possessing internet access.
Even when talking about straight-forward knowledge... not the apparent sophistication thereof, but perhaps in quantitative terms... just out of interest, how many languages does Raven speak? Moses was adept in multiple.
For the sake of brevity, I would still say that Moses possessed a higher degree of education than Raven, considering he was schooled in Pharaoh`s court (at the very least). Consider the fact that education is not a synonym, in it`s entirety, for knowledge.
Failing to acknowledge which, back to the initial comment that Raven claimed to have a higher intellectual capacity than Moses, I was hardly emphasizing knowledge... and actually to go back to my original thought - that of intellectual capacity (or potential)... I did mention this in the context of evolutionary thought - that there was a mere few thousand years difference separating us and Moses... which is hardly enough time to substantiate an increase in intellectual capacity to sufficiently boast that we have a higher intellectual capacity. It can not be proved. We simply have additional knowledge, that`s all. Now the real question is that of being simple-minded, and the intention with which that statement was made - intended to belittle that which he had no absolute certainty to back it up.

Before this thread gets derailed AGAIN,
FL-- Nobody suggested that we could critque EE without reading it. The few things that I have heard about it from people who have read it make it sound extremely scientifically dubious. The things that Paul Nelson (the author of EE) has written on PT were not impressive. People would make points that I among others found transparently simple and clear, and Nelson wouldn't seem to understand them.
It's based on that information that I'm guessing EE would be easy to refute. If you have the book and can quote from it, go, boy. I think we'd all welcome some real information here.

Nigel D., correct, I did write this: "Moses possessed a higher degree of education and literary skill than Raven". Thanks for taking the time to find it. I also talked about the difference between mere knowledge and wisdom. Through education or instruction you may acquire wisdom and knowledge... but wisdom or intelligence do not come automatically. That is to say that some people after having "completed their formal education" may in practice be utterly bereft of the desired benefits or purpose thereof. Let me point out that I also talked about intellectual capacity - which Raven assumes to have a higher level thereof.

— Frank Degenaar

There's no way to compare Moses and Raven in this area... nevertheless I would bet my bottom dollar on an assumed certainty, come to think of it, that Moses has a higher intellectual capacity than Raven, despite being a simple-minded sheepherder as Raven puts it.

Perhaps we should ask Raven to lay his credentials on the table, other than possessing internet access.

Even when talking about straight-forward knowledge... not the apparent sophistication thereof, but perhaps in quantitative terms... just out of interest, how many languages does Raven speak? Moses was adept in multiple.

For the sake of brevity, I would still say that Moses possessed a higher degree of education than Raven, considering he was schooled in Pharaoh's court (at the very least). Consider the fact that education is not a synonym, in it's entirety, for knowledge.

Failing to acknowledge which, back to the initial comment that Raven claimed to have a higher intellectual capacity than Moses, I was hardly emphasizing knowledge... and actually to go back to my original thought - that of intellectual capacity (or potential)... I did mention this in the context of evolutionary thought - that there was a mere few thousand years difference separating us and Moses... which is hardly enough time to substantiate an increase in intellectual capacity to sufficiently boast that we have a higher intellectual capacity.

It can not be proved. We simply have additional knowledge, that's all. Now the real question is that of being simple-minded, and the intention with which that statement was made - intended to belittle that which he had no absolute certainty to back it up.

Not even going to read and think through the Exploring Evolution textbook for yourself, eh? Just gonna rely on whatever Talk-Origins regurgitates for public consumption, mmm?

— FL

Well...no complaints from me, nope nope. In fact, my hope is that ALL the evolutionists in my state and hometown will follow your example!

Nigel D.......

Where are the comments on TO site. The disco institute seems very picky about who gets the book.

The TOA doesn't have specific information on "Explore Evolution" yet, but it does have a pretty comprehensive index to creationist claims, and since EE is comprised of retread antievolution arguments, you'll find quite a lot of the content is already discussed. Even a couple of the quotes examined so far have been featured in the TOA Quote Mine Project.

The weather seems to be rather troll-y. We mop up the messes as we find them.

My buddy referred this particular link to me. This really is specifically what I had been looking for.