Louisiana is next

the Senate bill
SENATE BILL NO. 733 (Substitute of Senate Bill No. 561 by Senator Nevers)
http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=482728

the
House Bill 1168 — Author: Rep. Frank Hoffman, District 15, West Monroe, LA
“Louisiana Academic Freedom Act”
http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=479172

Two LU press accounts:

http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/18540309.html
and
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080502/NEWS/80502023

When I checked with a friend of mine at Univ. Loiusiana at Lafayette he indicated that they did not want a flood of support from outside the state because the undue influence of out of staters (e.g. Discovery Institute) was one of the reasons for resisting the bill. Indeed Barbara mentions this in her talking points.

Has the scientific community in LA changed its position? Do they now want the rest of us to start writing to the LA legislature?

Just want do what will help the most.

So far, the effort to curtail the teaching of biological nonsense in our high schools has been mostly reactive. It is time for at least a little bit of proactive policies. As a beginning matter, it might be possible to persuade our major private universities and colleges and public universities in states where it is politically possible to insist that admission applicants not only have a biology course, but a biology course where evolution is given its proper treatment. Students failing to demonstrate that their high school course met the proper standards would have to take a noncredit or "bonehead" biology class steeped in evolution

Thank God for the NCSE and people like Barbara Forrest.

Yes indeed, "Thank God for the NCSE and people like Barbara Forrest". If it wasn't for Barbara's diligent research and excellent prose, I doubt that few would realize that the Disco Tute is truly a crypto-Fascist organization determined to transform the United States into a totalitarian religious dictatorship of the kind described by Margaret Atwood in her novel "The Handmaid's Tale".

I agree with David Hudson. The colleges and universities have to take a very public stand, and specify that students applying for admission from schools that adopt these principles--or lack of principles--for education are immediately suspect and will have to demonstrate competence or remediate in a variety of subjects. The fact of the matter is that these freedom of education acts will put virtually all subjects of the suspect list. If the backers of these proposals want to go forward they can watch their already failing economies decline even more.

Thank NCSE and people like Barbara Forrest.

Dear GBH,

What you've proposed is actually being done now by the California Board of Regents in its ongoing legal dispute with some Californian "Christian" academies who are upset that the board doesn't accept their high school science courses as valid courses suitable for undergraduate admission at such "flagship" campuses as Berkeley and Los Angeles. Eminent evolutionary geneticist Francisco J. Ayala is acting as an expert on behalf of the board (He is a professor of evolutionary biology at University of California, Irvine.), while one Mike Behe is acting on behalf of the defendants. So far Behe's "assistance" has proven to be as helpful as his prior testimony at the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial, judging from recent posts here at Panda's Thumb and elsewhere.

Regards,

John

But, [Judge] Otero noted, the textbooks at issue are unabashedly dogmatic; Biology for Christian Schools, for example, declares on its first page, "If [scientific] conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong, no matter how many scientific facts may appear to back them," and "Christians must disregard [scientific hypotheses or theories] that contradict the Bible."

I am intending to thank Barbara Forrest by buying two copies of her trojan horse book and donating them to high school libraries in Ouachita Parish, Louisiana. They just might get someone's attention.

Dear MelM,

Obviously, according to such "brilliant" intellects as Amazon.com's "Bent" Brent Mortimer and Fritz Ward, you just don't get it. Judge Otero was as guilty of the cardinal sin of plagiarizing as Federal Judge John Jones was when he issued his profoundly insightful ruling at the end of the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial. Alas it looks as though California will be treated to yet another spectacle.

Appreciatively yours,

John

Hat tip Uncommon Descent

As a native resident of Louisiana (56 years) and a product of the public education system, I felt compelled to write the entire Senate Education Committee an email opposing Sen Nevers proposed bill. I was glad to add my voice to keep this bill from passing but I know this will not end their campaign. I've had to self-educate through research and reading real science. I certainly didn't get any science education in the public schools here. The fundies are by far the majority in this state and they hold poltical power. People in this state are actually proud of their ignorance of science. Ben Stein's film will do well here in Louisiana I'm afraid.

Mark Farmer said: When I checked with a friend of mine at Univ. Loiusiana at Lafayette he indicated that they did not want a flood of support from outside the state...

--Judge Otero was as guilty of the cardinal sin of plagiarizing as Federal Judge John Jones was when he issued his profoundly insightful ruling at the end of the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial.--

When preachers want to give sermons about Christianity, why do they keep plagiarizing the Bible? Can't they come up with words of their own?

PvM said: Thank God for the NCSE and people like Barbara Forrest.

Thank God for the NCSE and people like Barbara Forrest.

I'd rather thank Barbara for her own work, thanks.

credit where credit is due.

"Please try to avoid science talk". Really?

Philip Bruce Heywood said: "Please try to avoid science talk". Really?

Philip Bruce Heywood said: "Please try to avoid science talk". Really?

On the other hand, the day you explain what an “entropy barrier” or any of the other nonsense terms you’ve made up, is, is the day you also apologize for putting words into other people’s mouths. In other words, “in the Year of the Porcupine, which is never.”

Mike Elzinga said:

On the other hand, the day you explain what an “entropy barrier” or any of the other nonsense terms you’ve made up, is, is the day you also apologize for putting words into other people’s mouths. In other words, “in the Year of the Porcupine, which is never.”

He is going to claim that he did here . However, he got nailed again in the very next comment. The faking is getting pretty boring. I get the impression that he has no intention whatsoever of educating himself. Just wants to disrupt threads.

It is good to see repentence in a state full of Voodists that experienced God's justice by hurricane in 2005. They hace learned they need more Jesus and less Darwin.

Per the DI's web site this so called "academic freedom" bill is moving to other states. We can see that the DI will make it appear they are successful (but per the PT they lost in FL). More hype, yet they're blatantly involved in the whole process as described below from their site:

Evolution Academic Freedom Bills Spread to More States - National Movement Grows

Five states (MI, FL, LA, AL, MO) are currently considering adoption of academic freedom legislation designed to protect teachers who teach both the scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory. Introduction of similar legislation is being considered by legislators in several other states, indicating the national scope of this movement.

“Often in this debate the issues at hand get misrepresented, and so our goal is to fully and straightforwardly explain that this is about science and helping prepare the best scientists of the future for our state and for our country,” said Rep. John Moolenaar, sponsor of academic freedom legislation in Michigan. “And a big part of that is enabling them to have the academic freedom to explore and critically examine scientific theories.”

Many of the bills have been adapted from sample legislation developed by Discovery Institute, including a model statute posted online at www.academicfreedompetition.com.

“In many states public school teachers, students, and even college professors have faced intimidation and retaliation when they attempt to discuss scientific criticisms of Darwinian evolution,” said biologist Jonathan Wells, a research scientist at the DI’s Center for Science & Culture who holds a Ph.D. from University of California Berkeley. “In educational institutions that receive taxpayer support, it is entirely appropriate for the government to ensure that teachers and students have the right to discuss freely the evidence and scientific arguments for and against evolutionary theory.”

New developments include:

Tuesday, an academic freedom bill was introduced in Michigan, bringing the number of states currently considering legislation to five.

Monday, the Louisiana state Senate passed an academic freedom bill 35-0.

Also on Monday, the Florida House passed a bill 71-43 that would require inclusion of scientific criticisms of Darwin's theory in the classroom. The Florida Senate previously passed an academic freedom bill that would protect the rights of teachers to do this. The two bodies must now reconcile their bills before the end of this year’s legislative session.

Last week, an academic freedom bill was introduced in Alabama.

Today there will be a legislative hearing on Missouri's academic freedom bill.

Thank God for the NCSE and people like Barbara Forrest.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said:

Thank God for the NCSE and people like Barbara Forrest.

It is a shame to devalue the valuable work of NCSE and Barbara Forrest in such a manner. Instead I will take the opportunity to thank them.

JoyBoy said: It is good to see repentence in a state full of Voodists that experienced God's justice by hurricane in 2005. They hace learned they need more Jesus and less Darwin.

It is good to see repentence in a state full of Voodists that experienced God’s justice by hurricane in 2005.

'Cumulative disaster' of storms ravages Arkansas 12:00 AM CDT on Sunday, May 4, 2008 The Associated Press DAMASCUS, Ark. – Looking over yet another storm-damaged community in Arkansas, Gov. Mike Beebe offered repeated promises of government help. "It's a cumulative disaster, I guess," Mr. Beebe said. Week after week since February, television screens in Arkansas have flashed meteorologists' warnings of floods and tornadoes. At least 26 people have died from violent storms, most in rural areas where rice grows and livestock graze on tall grass. Six of those who died Friday lived among the rolling hills and piney woods of central Arkansas. In the times between the storms, Arkansas has also seen a foot of snow, a foot of rain, flash flooding and long-standing river flooding this year. At least five people died in the floods.

I really don't know what these people hope to accomplish with all of this "academic freedom" nonsense. If any legislation is enacted that does allow for the teaching of ID in public schools, it will immediately be challenged on the grounds of constitutionality and will be overturned. If any legislation gets passed that does not allow for the teaching of ID, then the minute that anyone tries to use it to force ID into the curriculum they will be sued and they will lose. These guys just don't have a clue. The courts are not going to let them throw away the constitution, they can't, it's that simple.

As for "academic freedom", we already have that. Anyone is free to present any scientific evidence at any time. Who could possibly stop them and why would they want to? So come on all you ID guys slaving away in your secret labs, show us what you have come up with, show us what we are supposedly suppressing. I know you wish you could have shown your work in that feature length film, but there just wasn't enough time, what with all the Nzzi scenes and all. Man that producer sure screwed up. Why don't you make a movie about how he suppressed the scientific evidence?

In Michigan the governor desperately wants to revitalize the economy by promoting the development of green technology. I don't think that either she or the prople of Michigan are going to let anyone mess with the science standards in this state. These bills have a long history of dying in committee here. Of course, I could be wrong. We could allow this nonsense into our schools and pay the price for years. Oh well, I guess we could always make a movie about it.

I don’t think that either she or the people of Michigan are going to let anyone mess with the science standards in this state. These bills have a long history of dying in committee here.

Why it this devalueing the work by the NCSE and Barbara Forrest?

I guess it depends on who you feel deserves the credit.

You didn't seem to think Barbara Forrest deserves the credit herself, instead thanking some extraneous entity instead.

some of us see it quite differently.

you often seem to forget that.

Correction to my one post, earlier on. It should have been, "Please try to avoid 'science talk'". In all fairness, "science talk" doesn't equate to science talk. I was inquisitive re. the meaning of "science talk". If it's anything like my campfollowers, Stanton, Elzinga & co., ramble on about - yes, avoid it, by all means, yes, please avoid it.

Mr. Stanton. Having been "nailed" in the very next entry by someone who seemingly doesn't know that entropy is measured (yes, actually measured!) in, say, Joules per degree Kelvin, and that enthalpy is measured in the same per kg., and who seemingly hasn't got a clue why, I was was saving him the embarrassment of a reply. You know, there are dinkum science people who visit PANDA'S THUMB? They can think for themselves?

Regarding the work of NCSE. You people are way ahead of us AUS.dudes. Perhaps its because the creationists are keeping you on your toes? Nevertheless, the NCSE claims to uphold scientific Origins against non-scientific Origins. The only problem being, as soon as someone like myself, coming from historically mainstream science (which historically is compatible with Christain Scripture), invites them to see where origins is really at, evaluate my work, and utilize any useful components, they suddenly need to see a man about a dog. Strangely, they gnaw down trees every day, one way or another, evaluating unscriptural, unscientific origins theory, but when invited to evaluate the opposite, there is this compelling man with the dog.
I think we're all confused about the "science talk".

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Mr. Stanton. Having been "nailed" in the very next entry by someone who seemingly doesn't know that entropy is measured (yes, actually measured!) in, say, Joules per degree Kelvin, and that enthalpy is measured in the same per kg., and who seemingly hasn't got a clue why, I was was saving him the embarrassment of a reply. You know, there are dinkum science people who visit PANDA'S THUMB? They can think for themselves?

Confound my spelling. That's christian, not christain. Isn't it?

So are you going to explain what an "entropy barrier" is, and and how the ”entropy barrier” prevents speciation, even though there have been numerous observed speciation events in any of our lifetimes?

Will you explain why your nonsense is relevant to the fact that Creationists are seeking to wreck the science education curriculum in Louisiana? Perhaps by demonstrating what happens to a person's thinking skills when he has immersed and isolated himself in religious nonsense for a decade for piety's sake?

invites them to see where origins is really at, evaluate my work, and utilize any useful components, they suddenly need to see a man about a dog.

translation:

"as soon as someone with any sense meets me in person, they suddenly feel a need for quick egress."

uh huh.

You see David, we have to avoid "science talk". This page has an allergy to it. I can't find yours or my previous entries. Perhaps it's my computer.

One can put two reagents together, and although, theoretically, the enthalpy (heat content) aspect might allow them to react, they remain uncombined. That's the entropy (organizational) aspect cutting in, barring the combination. These things can be quantified by physical chemists. Well, they haven't literally quantified the entropy barrier to the spontaneous formation of, say, proteins, from their disparate inorganic constituents, because it isn't happening in any laboratory and can't be measured in terms of calories/joules. Because life did become more complex, 'in the wild', as observed, we may simply say, "God did it", or we may set this aside, and discern how it was done. Classical thermodynamics seems to allow no pathway, but the quantum extension of classical physics is more promising. Superconduction-style novel states of matter go close to perpetual motion, in some respects (perpetual electric circuits?) and, more to the point, quantum 'particles' can double as a form of information. Information imparts organization, therefore theoretically can negate an entropy barrier. Start looking at the peculiar characteristics of the complex organic structures in cells - and, hey! it's beginning to look as though there's a tie-in.

We don't need to take such exciting new developments to either legislative bodies, or courts of law.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: You see David, we have to avoid "science talk". (snip) Superconduction-style novel states of matter go close to perpetual motion, in some respects (perpetual electric circuits?) and, more to the point, quantum 'particles' can double as a form of information.

Stanton,

Looks like PBH is still confusing the two of us. Now how many times has it been pointed out to him that we are not the same person? This guy just can't ever learn anything.

Now, here he goes again about quantum information. He never has explained where the information comes from, what the goal of the information is, how it is passed on to moleculae or why these molecules should care. Oh well, at least he is trying to explain what an entropy barrier is now. Funny how he claimed for weeks that he had already explained it and refused to explain it again. Now he is desperate for everyone to understand. I guess he just needed some more attention. Maybe SWT will come around again and give him all the attention he wants.

The only problem being, as soon as someone like myself, coming from historically mainstream science (which historically is compatible with Christain Scripture), invites them to see where origins is really at, evaluate my work, and utilize any useful components, they suddenly need to see a man about a dog.

PBH complains... Having been ”nailed” in the very next entry by someone who seemingly doesn’t know that entropy is measured (yes, actually measured!) in, say, Joules per degree Kelvin,

Philip Bruce Heywood said: You see David, we have to avoid "science talk". This page has an allergy to it. I can't find yours or my previous entries. Perhaps it's my computer. One can put two reagents together, and although, theoretically, the enthalpy (heat content) aspect might allow them to react, they remain uncombined. That's the entropy (organizational) aspect cutting in, barring the combination. These things can be quantified by physical chemists. Well, they haven't literally quantified the entropy barrier to the spontaneous formation of, say, proteins, from their disparate inorganic constituents, because it isn't happening in any laboratory and can't be measured in terms of calories/joules. Because life did become more complex, 'in the wild', as observed, we may simply say, "God did it", or we may set this aside, and discern how it was done. Classical thermodynamics seems to allow no pathway, but the quantum extension of classical physics is more promising. Superconduction-style novel states of matter go close to perpetual motion, in some respects (perpetual electric circuits?) and, more to the point, quantum 'particles' can double as a form of information. Information imparts organization, therefore theoretically can negate an entropy barrier. Start looking at the peculiar characteristics of the complex organic structures in cells - and, hey! it's beginning to look as though there's a tie-in. We don't need to take such exciting new developments to either legislative bodies, or courts of law.

Having been ”nailed” in the very next entry by someone who seemingly doesn’t know that entropy is measured (yes, actually measured!) in, say, Joules per degree Kelvin, and that enthalpy is measured in the same per kg., and who seemingly hasn’t got a clue why, I was was saving him the embarrassment of a reply.

PvM said: Why it this devalueing the work by the NCSE and Barbara Forrest?

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Nevertheless, the NCSE claims to uphold scientific Origins against non-scientific Origins.

provide: * Reviews of current anti-evolution activity in the United States and around the world
* Background to the fundamentally creationist and anti-evolution movement known as "Intelligent Design"
* Detailed information on the Creation/Evolution controversy from 1859 to the present
* Resources for parents, teachers, school boards, and the general public

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Having been "nailed" in the very next entry by someone who seemingly doesn't know that entropy is measured (yes, actually measured!) in, say, Joules per degree Kelvin, and that enthalpy is measured in the same per kg., and who seemingly hasn't got a clue why, I was was saving him the embarrassment of a reply.

standardized against a mole

Eh, Stevaroni. Basically you seem to me to have repeated what I said, but if you do have some clues about thermodynamics, spill everything you know. I have severe difficulties with the topic. I do know enough to know that what happens to influence a thermometer is a direct result of what happens at the molecular/atomic level, so I am lost as to what you are driving at. Leaving quantum physics to one side for the moment, how can classical thermodynamics as applied , say, to protein formation, deal with anything but the results of interactions that ultimately happen at the atomic/molecular level?

Mike, you may well be a genius. You could hold a job where I would be a dead loss. You are probably a fine operator in your field. You have possibly forgotten more than I ever knew. As I said above, I have grave difficulty with thermodynamics, and, indeed anything practical and useful, mathematically. That's why I need to have it explained, and that's why people out there need to have it explained. I am sure that this was not your intention, but to date, all you seem to have said by way of discussing entropy etc., is that it doesn't stand in the way of common descent evolution, and it has something to do with temperature. People out there may not be physicists and mathematicians, but they do see that there is something stopping certain processes and reactions from happening. Would you care to explain - this is about my 5th invitation - just why everything isn't just reacting with everything, TNT isn't going off without a detonator, rust hasn't yet eaten through the Empire State Building, clear-cut minerals solidify out of magmas, the world isn't just one big blob of ever-reacting elements, and DNA doesn't form in your test-tube, before tea each day? Perhaps there are rules to follow in physical chemistry - what are they?

Incidentally, Darwin was, in a sense, a school drop-out and a farmer. Guess what I am. But he seems to have been able to get a message across. Good place to start? All the above, tells me and the man in the street, next to nothing.

Philip,

Whether it's an entropy barrier, ontogenetic depth, specified or irreducible complexity, many people these days have some concept on which to base to base their incredulity about evolution. Or maybe incredulity about abiogenesis; they always seem to get the two mixed up, either innocently or on purpose. Behe is one of the few exceptions (outside of Biblical literalists) who gives some indication of what he thinks happened instead. In a nutshell, he thinks (though with apparently increasing uncertainty) that all life is descended from an ancestral cell that lived 3-4 billion years ago, and that, every now and then, some processes beyond the "edge of evolution" occur to drive the changes and branching.

Do you agree with that, or do you propose something very different? If you are genuinely unsure, best guesses will do. If you made this clear elsewhere, a reference will suffice.

My site is www.creationtheory.com , mainstream science, Bible based, as the Internet people classify it.

The evidencing of life on earth was an analogue of a tree - hidden beginnings (roots); old species (solid timber) act as conduits of life (sap, flowing upwards); new species equate to new growth and/or fruit. Practical people twig onto it almost straight away. Note that new growth pre-exists in a real, living sense, before it appears. Information relay plays a pivotal role. The evidencing of (pre-existing)new species occurs when the information technology set-up trips the species lock, and re-programs the (cell's) information devices where necessary. So there is no common, "blood", descent. What presumably happens, outwardly, at new species realization, is that the close physical similarity of the unrolling species, plus immune system re-programming, or something such, enables the conduit species to bear and, if necessary, rear, the new. Isolation, natural selection, response to environment - all the box and dice of Neo-Darwinism - may well play a part. Just as rain and warmth may play a part in dust apparently giving rise to lice.

I deduced the above by evaluating the geologic record in light of the biblical narrative, and within a decade the confirmation started to come in. Very gratifying. The fine detail isn't there yet.

You know why SETI is having such a dry run? Not only is our solar system a complex enigma: it doubles as a major component in information storage/transmission, necessary to the tree. Doesn't happen every day, in every galaxy.

The evidencing of (pre-existing)new species occurs when the information technology set-up trips the species lock, and re-programs the (cell’s) information devices where necessary. So there is no common, ”blood”, descent. What presumably happens, outwardly, at new species realization, is that the close physical similarity of the unrolling species, plus immune system re-programming, or something such, enables the conduit species to bear and, if necessary, rear, the new.

The storage and transmission of information in the natural realm is always a ‘mechanical’ process. The hidden information systems of nature which communicate with atoms in living cells are mechanical systems. A computer is a machine. A conventional computer functions primarily through conventional mechanics, especially as an application of conventional electronics. A quantum computer functions through quantum mechanics, and is a usage of quantum electronics. At the level of the quantum of foundational energy, electricity and magnetism are "king". An atom is basically organized electro-magnetic energy. Intelligence storage and transmission systems at this level are electro-magnetic. In simplistic terms, magnetism can "talk".

Jesus fucking Christ, it's never gonna end is it?

PBH said:

"Just as rain and warmth may play a part in dust apparently giving rise to lice."

Is this the same idea as rats being spontaneously generated from that pile of soiled rags sitting in the corner of the room?

My, creationists have come a long way in describing the world, haven't they?

My site is www.creationtheory.com , mainstream science, Bible based, as the Internet people classify it.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

Well PBH doesn't seem to understand genetics either. I'm sure he would admit to lack of knowledge in this area as well. Funny how that doesn't seem to stop him from pontification in all of the areas he presumably lacks knowledge of.

Why does this guy always insist that information comes from the solar system? How is this information produced? Who produces it? How does it get into molecules? What is the goal of this information? Couldn't God find an easier way to do things? Why doesn't every solar ststem have this capacity? What makes this solar system so special? Is all of the information used up now? If not, what will the future hold for life on earth? Presumably the information already esists somewhere so he should be able to figure it all out.

I would also like to get my hands on the yahoo who he claims classified his site as "mainstream science - Bible based". What a moron. That's like saying the site is about dehydrated water.

Why does this guy trash up every thread with this nonsense? Why does the adminstration for this site let him do this? Why can't this guy ever stick to the topic? Why won't this guy ever explain what he means? Why does this guy always make up terms? Why does anyone care about some supposed mechanism that cannot be observed? Why does he think that a half developed idea will convince anyone of anything when he has no evidence? Why am I so sure that he won't answer any of these questions?

JoyBoy wrote: It is good to see repentence in a state full of Voodists that experienced God's justice by hurricane in 2005. They hace learned they need more Jesus and less Darwin.

Daoud said: Jesus fucking Christ, it's never gonna end is it?

Philip Bruce Heywood said: ... As I said above, I have grave difficulty with thermodynamics, and, indeed anything practical and useful, mathematically. That's why I need to have it explained, and that's why people out there need to have it explained.

I am sure that this was not your intention, but to date, all you seem to have said by way of discussing entropy etc., is that it doesn't stand in the way of common descent evolution, and it has something to do with temperature.

People out there may not be physicists and mathematicians, but they do see that there is something stopping certain processes and reactions from happening. Would you care to explain - this is about my 5th invitation - just why everything isn't just reacting with everything, TNT isn't going off without a detonator, rust hasn't yet eaten through the Empire State Building, clear-cut minerals solidify out of magmas, the world isn't just one big blob of ever-reacting elements, and DNA doesn't form in your test-tube, before tea each day? Perhaps there are rules to follow in physical chemistry - what are they?

Philip Bruce Heywood said: why everything isn't just reacting with everything

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Leaving quantum physics to one side for the moment, how can classical thermodynamics as applied , say, to protein formation, deal with anything but the results of interactions that ultimately happen at the atomic/molecular level?

Why does this guy trash up every thread with this nonsense?

— David Stanton

PvM said:

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said:

Thank God for the NCSE and people like Barbara Forrest.

It is a shame to devalue the valuable work of NCSE and Barbara Forrest in such a manner. Instead I will take the opportunity to thank them.

Why it this devalueing the work by the NCSE and Barbara Forrest?

Stuart Weinstein said: As bafflegab goes, I give Heywood an A+

Daoud said: Jesus fucking Christ, it's never gonna end is it?

I said above, I have grave difficulty with thermodynamics, and, indeed anything practical and useful, mathematically. That’s why I need to have it explained, and that’s why people out there need to have it explained. I am sure that this was not your intention, but to date, all you seem to have said by way of discussing entropy etc., is that it doesn’t stand in the way of common descent evolution, and it has something to do with temperature.

"biology course where evolution is given its proper treatment."

Including a treatment of its weaknesses?

I acknowledge some genuine effort there to explain some genuinely counterintuitive aspects of Nature. Ice-cream gets more involved every day. I may never touch it again. I wish I was being honest, there.

I did hand in the (relatively) simple, math-based account of how scientists such as Kelvin told us to measure entropy, on some previous thread. Much of the same people who are here, were there, but were too busy telling me my attitude and my religion were screwy, too see it. I won't repeat it. Kelvin isn't running away, anywhere. The technical fact of the impossibility either of spontaneous generation of life, or of increasing complexity of life, without introduction of exceptional circumstances, doesn't come from me, or from creationists. It comes from thousands of totally reliable, totally respected, scientists, and from hard, math-based physics. The literature speaks for itself.

Some people watch too many westerns. This business of going about with loaded revolvers on waist belts and shooting from the hip, seldom, if ever, happened, except at Hollywood.

SWT seems to have his revolver disarmed and in a safe knee holster. I would be in his debt if he could tell me all he knows about quantum 'particles', such as photons, and their applications in taking the place of what we would term 'normal' chemical reagents. The new advances in technology are suggesting that there is more than one way to skin a cat, when it comes to re-arranging complex organic molecules. This has to do with finding thermodynamically possible pathways for the observed increase in the complexity of life. E.g., what do we know about generating an information relevant quantum particle, get it to do a set task in altering an organic molecule, then re-absorb it?

If you wish to save a lot of time and money, and some adverse publicity, I suggest you get hold of people such as NCSE, go to legislators/policymakers, tell them you are now pursuing a policy of open enquiry into the unfolding of life, the geologic column and physical chemistry being the ultimate arbiters. Tell them, you are no longer classifying the idea that EOHIPPUS gave birth to the distinctly different OROHIPPUS (or something similar) in the same way as Mum going to the hospital and having a baby, as scientific. You are entitled to do so, because you have pursued free speech.

You don't expect AIG to do it, do you? I have tried. Likewise the others. Not that they're all quite the same.

We are in a classic re-run of history, when the electrical animation = life imbroglio petered out, and the idealogically driven set dropped off the car of mainstream science. They cling on, to the last gasp.

I wish I was being honest, there.

I would be in his [STW’s] debt if he could tell me all he knows about quantum ’particles’, such as photons, and their applications in taking the place of what we would term ’normal’ chemical reagents.

This has to do with finding thermodynamically possible pathways for the observed increase in the complexity of life.

So, Mike, you have in theory or in practice set up a theoretical but real scenario, as prescribed by Kelvin and my university lecturer, that precisely reverses the total of the actions involved in speciation, and you have, by you, the readout of the 'work done' by the action(s), subtracted from the 'work required' to restore the system to originality, which tells us in hard figures the amount of 'disorganization' the universe inherited courtesy of the actions. Torbjorn has advized us on the units in which to express the (entropy) measurement.

It is apparent that classical thermodynamics doesn't reach that far. You are saying it does, without qualification. "Thermodynamics does not prevent increasing complexity, including life." Classical thermodynamics doesn't allow it, because it doesn't reach that far. So it becomes necessary to extend the thermodynamics. So why not extend the thermodynamics, so it does account for it, or come clean and admit that you have abandoned the scientific method by making pronouncements of fact upon something which has no mathematical framework in which to be evaluated? Of course life became more complex. The public out there might like to know, how. The legislators might like to know the same.

Classical thermodynamics doesn’t allow it, because it doesn’t reach that far. So it becomes necessary to extend the thermodynamics. So why not extend the thermodynamics, so it does account for it, or come clean and admit that you have abandoned the scientific method by making pronouncements of fact upon something which has no mathematical framework in which to be evaluated?

Louisiana may be next, but it looks like the early stages of an anti-evolution campaign may also be underway in Maine, led by a Creationist and Biblical literalist named Matthew Linkletter and the chairman of the School Administrative District 59 Board of Directors, Norman Luce.

Mike, as you say in the "profiling" comment:

"This appears to be a standard technique used by all ID/Creationists. They try to provoke scientists into explaining something and then proceed to quote-mine and distort everything the scientist says."

Exactly. Why risk being quote-mined when the lurkers can get evidence for evolution elsewhere? What I do feel the need to remind lurkers (because almost no one else does) is that the particular anti-evolutionist I am responding to is not the only "kind" of anti-evolutionist out there. The different "kinds" may share tactics of baiting "evolutionists," but beyond that, they have hopeless disagreements about what happened, when and how, in biological history. And an increasing habit of saying as little as possible about their position and covering up differences with others. PBH is becoming the exception to the rule by at least taking a position, though one has to sift through a lot of anti-evolution arguments, none of which support his position any better than competing ones, to find it.

It's like they are shouting between the lines: "We need to seek and fabricate 'weaknesses' of evolution because the weaknesses of every other potential explanation, including my own, are far greater."

“biology course where evolution is given its proper treatment.” Including a treatment of its weaknesses?

— orionsbelt

Frank, you do understand that in terms of the technology, this debate, which should never have begun, finished some years ago? The results are in, sufficient to end it.

But, in a mostly figurative sense, it "keeps some people off the streets". PANDA'S THUMB offers the world a service. It presumably has therapeutic value for certain personality types. And it does allow free speech, if you get a free-speech host.

It's a human phenomenon. As for technologic or historic accuracy or relevance, no - but then, we need an "out" for all types, and even the people over at AIG need their spot where they feel valued. I happen to be correct and I happened to end the Origins controversy - but it's the emptiest thing anyone could do. People need something more than technology and cold facts. Actually, a technically accurate Bible frightens me cold. I can read history and I can see human nature. Technologic accuracy doesn't create human virtue. Interesting world we inhabit.

Mike O'Risal said: Louisiana may be next, but it looks like the early stages of an anti-evolution campaign may also be underway in Maine, led by a Creationist and Biblical literalist named Matthew Linkletter and the chairman of the School Administrative District 59 Board of Directors, Norman Luce.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: SWT seems to have his revolver disarmed and in a safe knee holster. I would be in his debt if he could tell me all he knows about quantum 'particles', such as photons, and their applications in taking the place of what we would term 'normal' chemical reagents. The new advances in technology are suggesting that there is more than one way to skin a cat, when it comes to re-arranging complex organic molecules. This has to do with finding thermodynamically possible pathways for the observed increase in the complexity of life. E.g., what do we know about generating an information relevant quantum particle, get it to do a set task in altering an organic molecule, then re-absorb it?

I happen to be correct and I happened to end the Origins controversy - but it’s the emptiest thing anyone could do. People need something more than technology and cold facts.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

What I do feel the need to remind lurkers (because almost no one else does) is that the particular anti-evolutionist I am responding to is not the only ”kind” of anti-evolutionist out there. The different ”kinds” may share tactics of baiting ”evolutionists,” but beyond that, they have hopeless disagreements about what happened, when and how, in biological history. And an increasing habit of saying as little as possible about their position and covering up differences with others.

MattusMaximus said: Let's not derail folks... please stick to the issue at hand. If you want to discuss God vs. atheism, please go do it on a philosophy/theology forum.

That water flow & turbidity captures the imagination. I have often wondered about thunderstorms and these commonplace willy-willys that are somewhat like vortices moving through stable fluids. Kelvin said that we understand comparatively nothing, even about a cup of water. He also said, as I recall, something about vortex models of matter or something such.

On that topic, we had an Australian astro-mathematician or something such here, chap by the name of Prentice, smart operator, kept jumping up and down about planetary accretion along Neo-Laplacian lines, said he was being ignored. I think he was. He predicted a lot of things about the solar system, and furthermore had planets forming everywhere through this contraction of spinning particle discs with separation of rings of planet-forming matter as they contract. Playground spinner sort of effect. His big story was that he mathematically established the possibility of particle accretion in supersonic+ speed turbulence. With all these planets forming, supersonically, everywhere, he kept saying, We aren't alone. I wrote to him and pointed out that we certainly aren't alone - there are the Martians, the little green men, and the members of the Science Dept. at (I think it was) Melbourne University. Furthermore, would he like to publish his findings in user-friendly form at www.CreationTheory.com , because he had good and pertinent science? He decided he wasn't alone enough, in the universe, after that. But his turbulence theory made sense. He was also on the track with lunar origin. Modern technology hasn't yet grasped the full implications of turbulent flow, and it happens whenever we wash our hands.

Neither has it grasped the causes of hidden signalling in Nature. Yesterday's SCIENCEDAILY reports that some birds can sense when they are being watched. Mystery, anyone's guess, I lean towards some tie-in with light.

To be correct, I didn't end the Origins controversy, I merely expounded the implications of the geologic record in concert with the biblical account. Technology ends the argument. If birds can sense when they are being watched - think about it - nature can do things that we can scarcely as yet comprehend - such as tinker with organic molecules, without physical gene splicing/engineering. It's all there, in the modern science world. Why keep pushing the political buttons?

Frank raises a point re. 'straightening out' other bodies that oppose mainstream science. Ever been approached on a street corner by a religious sect? At home, by a religious sect? I don't know how you handle them, but I shudder and try to exit via a crack in the ground. I don't oppose them or anything. Every one to his own. I have personally tried to reason with one K. Ham (he is a Queenslander) and I have been personally somewhat ridiculed by one C. Weiland. Bless them all. In the end, the concept of a rational God who obeys his own laws is no enduring threat to science. But I can't personally handle this sectarian stuff. They probably don't get 5% of the populace. Fix up this nonsense about common descent and mutations, and get somewhere near the 21st Century in terms of technology, and they won't even rate 5%. It isn't politics you need, it's a convincing model.

Instead of constantly being distracted with these yahoos, we should instead be focusing our energies on educating people (especially our state legislatures) about these issues.

— MattusMaximus

Ever been approached on a street corner by a religious sect? At home, by a religious sect? I don’t know how you handle them, but I shudder and try to exit via a crack in the ground.

If you are short on cash, a payday cash advance Louisiana loan from CashNetUSA may be the best solution. Avoid the hassles of Louisiana car title loans, and get a quick cash loan today. Let us help you receive the fast cash advance Louisiana loan that you need.
----------------------------
dinesh

http://www.alcoholaddiction.org/louisiana