Civil War

Not a happy sight.

We need a new rule: if you don't understand it you're not allowed to protest against it.

"My grandad ain't no monkey!"- bzzzt. No banner for you.
"Daddy said evolution is bad." -bzzzt. No banner for you.
"Standard presentations of descent with variation frequently neglect the importance of developmental constraints on the available range of variation." - you might need a bigger banner.

Not a happy sight.

— tacitus

It seems like this young girl really does not understand the issues and is just doing what her parents want her to do to please them. Do you think the parents are exploiting her to make their point?

I had a look at the site mentioned on the sign. Don't bother. Not an argument, not a fact, nothing but blind assertions of falsehoods so blatantly obvious that even AiG gave up on them years ago. The guy must be stupider than a bag of rocks.

George said: It seems like this young girl really does not understand the issues and is just doing what her parents want her to do to please them. Do you think the parents are exploiting her to make their point?

“My grandad ain’t no monkey!”- bzzzt. No banner for you.

I've yet to have a fundtard explain to me how the Theory of Evolution being correct disproves the existence of their God. Not only do they not understand biology they don't seem to understand their theology well enough to defend it, hence the signs and the shouting of "Praise Jeezus!"

Poor girl.

I also checked out the site they referred to on the sign and it was pretty terrible (by creationist website standards)

George said: It seems like this young girl really does not understand the issues and is just doing what her parents want her to do to please them. Do you think the parents are exploiting her to make their point?

I also checked out the site they referred to on the sign and it was pretty terrible (by creationist website standards)

— Shoomi

Should one report this child abuse to Child Protective Services?

...there's just no words really is there? How does one fight against such stupidity?

This is rather frightening. I feel sorry for the poor girl, hopefully she grows up to know better.

Dear Mr. FL,

The flashing red light is nothing to worry about. It only comes on if the Censorship-O-Meter is being held by a moron.

Regards,
C-O-M Technical Support

George said: It seems like this young girl really does not understand the issues and is just doing what her parents want her to do to please them. Do you think the parents are exploiting her to make their point?

The flashing red light is nothing to worry about.

deep said: This is rather frightening. I feel sorry for the poor girl, hopefully she grows up to know better.

The Followers of Christ is an unorthodox fundamentalist Christian denomination based in the U.S. state of Oregon. The church has attracted controversy for its practices of faith healing and of shunning members who violate church doctrine, including those who seek medical care. According to authorities in Oregon and other places where church members are found, numerous children have suffered premature deaths from treatable causes due to their parents' refusal to seek medical care. Church members and others have argued that parents should have the right to select whatever methods of healing they deem appropriate for their children; and that public policy which requires use of conventional medicine over faith healing constitutes a violation of freedom of religion.

tacitus said: Not a happy sight.

FL: someone tongue-in-cheek (I assume) said "Should one report this child abuse to Child Protective Services?" and you get from that ". . . the government threatening to remove somebody’s children merely for publicly expressing religious opinions in a non-violent law-abiding manner". Please could you explain the logical steps you used.

There is a nice story - with a happy ending! - about a paleontologist who grew up creationist and went to school with the intention of debunking evolution. If you have access to Science, read it here:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/319/5866/1034

It highlights the difficulties faced by people who "betray" their religious upbringing.

Here's a sample from that Science article for you poor befuddled non-subscribers:

It was the study of fossils that, 25 years ago, set Godfrey on an anguished path. Raised in a fundamentalist Christian family in Quebec, Canada, embracing a 6000-year-old Earth where Noah's flood laid down every fossil, Godfrey began probing the underpinnings of creationism in graduate school. The inconsistencies he found led step by step, over many years, to a staunch acceptance of evolution. With this shift came rejection from his religious community, estrangement from his parents, and, perhaps most difficult of all, a crisis of faith that endures.

The article is called "Crossing the Divide," by Jennifer Couzin.

Science 22 February 2008:
Vol. 319. no. 5866, pp. 1034 - 1036
DOI: 10.1126/science.319.5866.1034

Dave Luckett said: I had a look at the site mentioned on the sign. Don't bother. Not an argument, not a fact, nothing but blind assertions of falsehoods so blatantly obvious that even AiG gave up on them years ago. The guy must be stupider than a bag of rocks.

Frank J said: What worries me much more is another ~20% that isn't so hopelessly fundamentalist, but still would choose the "man created in his present form in the last 10,000 years" answer on those poll questions. And yet another ~20% that accepts evolution (or more likely a caricature) but still thinks that it's fair to teach anti-evolution propaganda (what they think is "critical analysis") in public schools.

I do appreciate the civility of a non-shouting, non-in-your-face protest.

Nick, are you telling me the Yeshua guy is gone from Sproul Plaza? I haven't been back in a few years. While I can't remember this particular issue rearing its ugly head at Berkeley, I do remember protesters at Berkeley that were equally religious, equally crazy, and a lot more obnoxious...

The authority for Answers in Genesis is the infallible Word of God, the Bible [1](see Q&A: Bible). All theories of science are fallible, and new data often overturn previously held theories[2]. Just as evolutionists continually revise their theories because of new data, it should not be surprising or distressing that some creationist scientific theories need to be revised at times, too[3]. The first article on this page sums up what creationists’ attitude should be about various ideas and theories. The other articles provide examples of arguments that should no longer be used; some arguments are definitely fallacious, while others are merely doubtful or unsubstantiated[4]. We provide brief explanations why, and/or hyperlinks to other articles on this website with more detailed explanations. We don’t claim that this list is exhaustive[5]—it will be updated with additions and maybe deletions as new evidence is discovered. Many of these arguments have never been promoted by AiG, and some have not been promoted by any major creationist organization (so they were not directed at anyone in particular), but are instead straw men set up by anti-creationists[6]. Persistently using discredited arguments is both ineffectual and, more importantly, immoral—it’s the truth that sets us free[7] (John 8:32), not error, and Christ is “the truth” (John 14:6)! Since there is so much good evidence for creation[8], there is no need to use any of the “doubtful” arguments.

Now imagine what it is like to try to teach this kid about evolution. I have actually had some fundie kids stick their fingers in their ears rather than be contaminated by even listening to evolution. They have the ultimate threat. If you listen to evolutionists and decide for yourself that it makes sense....YOU WILL GO TO HELL!!!!

There's an unspoken assumption of dogma prefacing that article that's necessary for criticizing it. AIG teaches that the corrupting bias of atheistic science produces a different "science" than that of their God informed "worldview". If you attack religion in the context of criticizing the creationism education campaign you simply reinforce their argument. The major impact of their argument is not with the anti-science evangelicals, but with the majority of the population that has no interest in attacking religious beliefs. If you volunteer for the role of the anti-religion bogey man you reinforce the public perception that a "balanced" education is necessary.

It's really a shame that this child has become the unwitting victim of intellectual child abuse, having been forced by her parent(s) to believe in such patently ridiculous mendacious intellectual pornography. I know from Roman Catholic friends and acquaintances that they were taught evolution in their parochial schools by both lay teachers and Roman Catholic clergy, who had no problems at all distinguishing between scientific fact and religious belief. I only hope that this child finds a learning environment of some kind that will allow her to learn to think critically for herself.

There is always the possibility the girl was simply working for her dad to earn extra beer money.

I imagine most people just ignored this scene. On this thread we have a lot of disappointed head-shaking that this little kid is so indoctrinated.

What do you think would happen if some parent paraded their child wearing a "creationism is a lie" sandwich board?

What worries me much more is another ~20% that isn’t so hopelessly fundamentalist, but still would choose the “man created in his present form in the last 10,000 years” answer on those poll questions.

mary hunter said: Now imagine what it is like to try to teach this kid about evolution. I have actually had some fundie kids stick their fingers in their ears rather than be contaminated by even listening to evolution. They have the ultimate threat. If you listen to evolutionists and decide for yourself that it makes sense....YOU WILL GO TO HELL!!!!

FL: someone tongue-in-cheek (I assume) said “Should one report this child abuse to Child Protective Services?” and you get from that “… the government threatening to remove somebody’s children merely for publicly expressing religious opinions in a non-violent law-abiding manner”. Please could you explain the logical steps you used.

I bet that that family had no idea that when they went to the "War of Northern Aggression" football game their message was going to be broadcast around the world. Imagine all the people who are going to repent soon.

Nick, that's a great picture. Any chance you are going to release it under a GFDL or some creative commons license?

eric said: I do appreciate the civility of a non-shouting, non-in-your-face protest. Nick, are you telling me the Yeshua guy is gone from Sproul Plaza? I haven't been back in a few years. While I can't remember this particular issue rearing its ugly head at Berkeley, I do remember protesters at Berkeley that were equally religious, equally crazy, and a lot more obnoxious...

eric said:

mary hunter said: Now imagine what it is like to try to teach this kid about evolution. I have actually had some fundie kids stick their fingers in their ears rather than be contaminated by even listening to evolution. They have the ultimate threat. If you listen to evolutionists and decide for yourself that it makes sense....YOU WILL GO TO HELL!!!!

Call me a cynic, but as long as they weren't disruptive I think I'd be tempted to just grade their school assignments appropriately and move on. If a student gets a zero on on a test, quiz, or homework, is religious objection really any worse a reason than standard laziness? Yes, in the former case its a terrible shame that the kid is probably a good kid and its their parents who are to blame. ...But you could say the same thing for the latter case.

Yay! Up the Beavers!

Joe Felsenstein said: Frank J mentioned (among other things):

What worries me much more is another ~20% that isn’t so hopelessly fundamentalist, but still would choose the “man created in his present form in the last 10,000 years” answer on those poll questions.

Which leads me to wonder whether the majority that agrees with that statement (that humans ("man") were created in their present form in the last 10,000 years") are really all rejecting common descent. The pollsters want to concentrate on the essential issue (the origin of humans). But many people, for reasons of religious belief, make an exception for the origin of humans. If we instead asked whether different animals such as mice, birds, lizards, fish, insects and jellyfish all were descended from a an ancient life form that was ancestral to all of them and to other animal life, would the percentage of Americans who rejected common descent be as high as 50%?

Joshua Zelinsky said: Nick, that's a great picture. Any chance you are going to release it under a GFDL or some creative commons license?

FL said: You see nothing wrong with the government threatening to remove somebody's children merely for publicly expressing religious opinions...?

Paul Burnett said:

FL said: You see nothing wrong with the government threatening to remove somebody's children merely for publicly expressing religious opinions...?

Since when is "Evolution is a LIE" protected religious speech? If the sugn said (hypothetically here) "Kill the President! Turn to Jesus!" do you think Daddy might get a visit from the Secret Service? Or would that be a public expression of religious opinion?

fnxtr said: What do you think would happen if some parent paraded their child wearing a "creationism is a lie" sandwich board?

Yes, it is pretty clear that the Gallup poll and the way the questions are phrased there artificially inflates the detail and “hardness” of people’s positions on this issue. E.g.: …

— Nick Matzke

FL said:

The flashing red light is nothing to worry about.

You see nothing wrong with the government threatening to remove somebody's children merely for publicly expressing religious opinions in a non-violent law-abiding manner? Does the word "gulag" carry any meaning for you? FL

Nick:

It might be annoying,

It certainly is annoying, but that's not why we recoil from witnessed near-emotional-abuse of a child in public, because it annoys or discomfits us. It's because it's harm to a defenseless child, and stunting the intellectual growth of a future citizen.

And I do say "near"; I agree with you that the prospect of state intervention at the level of religious indoctrination within the home is beyond the pale. But I do believe there is real harm here. There's a big world out there, and I believe that to withold information and force-feed religiously-motivated falsehoods undermines a young person's ability to engage with it and become a happy, productive adult within it. No such brainwashing is final, of course, but why should this small child have to fear eternal hell, or experience the hell-on-earth of her family's ostracism, just to be able to learn simple truths about the natural world?

It's well beyond annoying, actually; it's sickening.

Nick (Matzke) said: * It is hard for scientists to even imagine this, but I am convinced that for a fair proportion of the population, the difference between 10,000 years and 4.5 billion years is basically nil. For people who've barely heard of this question and never think about it, which is lots of people, both numbers are basically unimaginably old and a long, irrelevant time ago.

Since when is “Evolution is a LIE” protected religious speech?

Someone get out the box from "Father Ted" - the one covered in black crayon with little stars and a moon - and pop it onto FL's head so's he goes to sleep again.
In the show, the aging, nicotine-stained fingered, generally disheveled Father Jack has a vocabulary of three basic words: "feck", "girls", and "drink". To subdue him, they slip the box over his head and his drops immediately into slumber.

Father Jack is, compared to a parasitic troll like FL, like a cross between Shakespeare and the Buddha in honesty, compassion, knowledge, and interesting conversation.

The "Evolution is a LIE" line is a neat restatement of the 1857 Omphalos idea of Philip Henry Gosse, that God the liar created everything with a false appearance of age.

So unlike that wiser theologian Francis Bacon who wrote "let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both."

As reprinted on page ii of On the Origin of Species by Darwin, who followed the natural theology of his day in looking honestly at God's works.

I'd like to specify that sending your small child out to a protest with a "creationism is a lie" sandwich board would be almost as bad as this; but then, sane people generally try not to treat their children as puppets.

Paul Burnett said "Since when is “Evolution is a LIE” protected religious speech? If the sugn said (hypothetically here) “Kill the President! Turn to Jesus!” do you think Daddy might get a visit from the Secret Service? Or would that be a public expression of religious opinion?"

Well, I think we can agree there is a big diffrence between an assertion (however poorly thought through) and an incitement to violence. In other words, I feel the law of the land is (and should be) tolerant of people who say any damn fool thing as long as it does not incite violence or cause direct threat of harm (shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theatre is the classic example of unprotected speech)

Carl Matherly said: Paul Burnett said "Since when is “Evolution is a LIE” protected religious speech?" Well, I think we can agree there is a big diffrence between an assertion (however poorly thought through) and an incitement to violence. In other words, I feel the law of the land is (and should be) tolerant of people who say any damn fool thing as long as it does not incite violence or cause direct threat of harm (shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theatre is the classic example of unprotected speech)

DavidK said:

George said: It seems like this young girl really does not understand the issues and is just doing what her parents want her to do to please them. Do you think the parents are exploiting her to make their point?

No, it would appear her parents have carefully weighed all the evidence for and against evolution and from that told their daughter what to think. If she thinks otherwise, her parents might shun and abandon her, i.e. the fear factor, and otherwise make her life a hell on earth. Isn't that how religion works? But I'm sure it is a heart-warming sight for the Dishonesty Institute ilk.

How many more incremental steps is it to the Bible-toting home-schooled peasants with their pitchforks and torches burning laboratories and scientists because “Evolution is a LIE!”

.. quite a few! You are the one that sounds dangerous!

FL said:

Since when is “Evolution is a LIE” protected religious speech?

You gotta be kidding, right? Guys, it's one thing for you to push for Darwinism to replace the Bible, but now you want Darwinism to replace the U.S. Constitution as well???? (Or is this another one of those evolutionist comments that subsequently get labeled as "tongue in cheek" in order to tamp down the embarrassment thereof?) FL

@Paul Burnett

I'm sorry Paul, I'm I'm going to have to disagree with you.

Your "Slippery Slope" is just as flawed as the fundie's "Slippery Slope" arguments against treating homosexuals as full citizens. Simply saying something is wrong does not incite violence against it. By way of analogy, I don't think any rational person would argue that if I said "Christianity is wrong" or "Islam is wrong" or "Pastafarianism is wrong" that I was suggesting or encouraging violence against any who followed those religeons. If we are going to have a remotely free society, we are going to have to accept that people have the right to publicly say things that we think are wrong. If we errode those rights, someday it will be *our* backs against the wall (no matter how you define *us*) being repressed.

Maybe a better solution is the pastafarian route: walk beside her with a sandwich board that says "geocentrism is a LIE".

Stanton said: ... We're saying that "Evolution is a LIE" is not protected religious speech.

FL said:

Since when is “Evolution is a LIE” protected religious speech?

You gotta be kidding, right? ... FL

George said: This little girl has very little power over her situation. She appears to be a little slow or learning disabled. Can you please take down her picture? She did nothing. Put up the parents picture. You are exploiting this little girl for your political agenda.

What are these people doing wasting their precious time at a blue state football game with no bearing whatsoever on the mythical college football championship? They should be in front of the White House protesting their best president ever who has just admitted not only that God in fact does not speak to him directly but also that evolution is perfectly compatible with his personal religious belief. Does that mean that W really wasn't trying to promote armageddon in order to enhance the 2nd coming? I want my vote back, and if not my vote at least my life savings.

Oh, the mighty Beavers, my alma mater, have struck out,
but at least it was to fellow Oregonians the Ducks.

I spent over a decade in Corvallis and of course, being
a college town, the "REPENT THE END IS NEAR" crowd is
atypical -- though I expect some attendees from the
"People's Republic Of Eugene" might have thought "that's
Corvallis for you."

Just Passing Through

I might add that it may be atypical but of course it's not
unknown. I don't know if you remember this, Nick, but back
in the 80s one of the local fundies was making a loud
nuisance of herself, complaining about evil books in the
libraries and the like, to the point where the CORVALLIS
REPORTER-HERALD was running headlines and satirical
cartoons on her.

Anyway, I was working with a cute little Japanese-Hawaiian
woman named Eloise, married to a Texan expatriate, and
they got a baby-sitter for their two toddler girls. The
baby-sitter turned out to be the fundy woman -- Eloise's
husband said: "It's the BOOK BURNER!"

Turned out to be pleasant and conscientious baby-sitter,
but Eloise would occasionally pass on stories about some
of the strange things she said.

Just Passing Through (Again)

John said:

George said: This little girl has very little power over her situation. She appears to be a little slow or learning disabled. Can you please take down her picture? She did nothing. Put up the parents picture. You are exploiting this little girl for your political agenda.

I'd have to agree. She doesn't really have a say in any of this. She is already pretty much guaranteed to be locked into an access controlled compound as the pregnant, prairie dress wearing 7th arranged wife a man 40 years her senior. Are we sure the man with her was a parent and not a spouse?

Brian Black then provided a fascinating account of his uncle Herbert, from a family perspective. Instead of the driving (and drinking) force remembered by many Society members, Brian gave us an insight into a still more eccentric character - someone apparently capable of 'selling the family silver' to pay for his legendary summer-long trips to the Alps with his wife Pauline. Brian also seemed somewhat daunted by the prospect of receiving back the residue of Herbie's vast collection of 35mm colour slides, now that the Ulster Museum has completed its selection and cataloguing of some 16,000 images.

The early success of the Belfast Geologists' Society was due mainly to the work of a remarkable individual - Herbert S Black. 'Herbie' was a schoolmaster by profession and it is no exaggeration to say that the Society was his whole life. For nearly four decades he ran the Society almost single-handedly. Herbie was not only a wonderful organiser but also a character in every sense. Anyone who ever met Herbie - whether a member of the Society or one of his pupils at Belfast Model or Annadale - acquired a fund of Herbie anecdotes.

the pro from dover said: What are these people doing wasting their precious time at a blue state football game with no bearing whatsoever on the mythical college football championship?

George said: You are exploiting this little girl for your political agenda.

John said:

George said: This little girl has very little power over her situation. She appears to be a little slow or learning disabled. Can you please take down her picture? She did nothing. Put up the parents picture. You are exploiting this little girl for your political agenda.

I'd have to agree. She doesn't really have a say in any of this.

She is already pretty much guaranteed to be locked into an access controlled compound as the pregnant, prairie dress wearing 7th arranged wife a man 40 years her senior. Are we sure the man with her was a parent and not a spouse?

Matt G said: There is a nice story - with a happy ending! - about a paleontologist who grew up creationist and went to school with the intention of debunking evolution. If you have access to Science, read it here: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/319/5866/1034 It highlights the difficulties faced by people who "betray" their religious upbringing.

We as scientists ought to be those most keenly aware of the tenuous and ever-changing nature of human knowledge, even as we build on that which has stood the test of time. We ought to behave as though the faith community poses no threat to the integrity of science, just as the faith community ought to behave as though science poses no threat to the integrity of faith.

mary hunter said: Now imagine what it is like to try to teach this kid about evolution. I have actually had some fundie kids stick their fingers in their ears rather than be contaminated by even listening to evolution. They have the ultimate threat. If you listen to evolutionists and decide for yourself that it makes sense....YOU WILL GO TO HELL!!!!

Nick Matzke I asked permission from the father (and the girl) to take the photo; the father agreed as long as I took some of the literature.

Ray Martinez said: Here is your message: Creationism is unsophisticated, ignorance, Fundamentalism.

Darwinism is sophisticated, knowledge, modernity.

Plenty of Ph.D.s proclaim the same message of the poor girl that you have exploited. Maybe I should post a picture of arch-evolutionist and Holocaust denier Matt Giwer? Transparent stuff, Nick. Ray

This is either a joke or wild over-extrapolating with no data. Even most conservative street-preachers aren’t this crazed. The dad was dressed pretty normally, I imagine the family is typical fundamentalists, i.e. very modern except in their beliefs about specific things.

Dear friends of 'Take Heed', I received an email from a concerned parent about a series of programmes that BBC Northern Ireland will be airing on TV/Radio/Internet as from 31st March. It will be their biggest single ever expenditure on a series of programmes. In it they will teach the theoretical 600 million year history of the island of Ireland. No reference will be made to a Creator or Intelligent Designer and no reference will be made to important biblical events such as God's 6-day creation or the worldwide flood of Noah's days as recorded in the book of Genesis. I have spoken with the presenter, William Crawley, who is a 'theistic evolutionist' and explained to him that this will cause great offence to many Christians in Northern Ireland who accept God's account of His own creation as recorded in the book of Genesis. Such Christians will view this expenditure by the BBC as an offensive abuse of their TV licence fee money. He said he hoped that wouldn't happen but I confirmed to him that it has already happened as in the case of the lady who emailed me and myself also. I will set out shortly the email I received from the concerned parent and then I will set out an email that I would ask you to copy and send to William Crawley as your personal protest to the BBC about this offensive abuse of the licence fee money of Christians in Northern Ireland who accept Genesis as God's account of His own creation. Yours for His truth and glory Cecil Andrews 'Take Heed Ministries

Dear Mr Andrews, I am a Christian in Northern Ireland and I am very disturbed to discover that the BBC is about to screen a 3-part series on natural history that is a celebration of evolution. The programme is called BLUEPRINT and is presented by William Crawley, who is well-known in NI as a leading pro-evolution campaigner. He interviewed Ken Ham on radio a couple of years ago. My daughter's school has received information about the programmes, which start running on March 31 (Monday, 9pm, BBC 1 Northern Ireland). Her school will be using the programmes to teach the story of Ireland's "600 million years" as an island. I have made some enquiries and discovered the following: 1. This is the biggest TV/radio/internet project the BBC has ever done in NI on any subject. That's my licence fee at work defending evolution! Three TV shows with three follow up tv shows, radio programmes and a new website which must have cost a fortune. (bbc.co.uk/blueprint) 2. Creation has been deliberately removed from the series. No mention of any alternative account of how the world was formed. Jesus has been edited out of our children's education. The schools are going to be using this resource to teach a whole generation about the world without reference to God. 3. The series, according to one person I know who has seen an advance viewing, deliberately refuses to use the word "designed" at any point. It celebrates the accidental evolution of the world in 3 hours of TV which I have helped to pay for. I am very angry that the BBC, yet again, is siding with evolution in the debate about the origins of the world. These programmes are about to launch a massive attack on the Christian values of our country and I hope Christians can be persuaded to make their voices heard with the BBC. I think this is the most dangerous TV series in NI for years. If possible, I would like to see Christians gather in prayer outside Broadcasting House in protest at this insidious attack on our society's foundational values. Perhaps your website and network will be able to bring this disgrace to other Christians attention and perhaps we can bring together a sizeable group of people willing to take a stand, literally, outside the BBC on March 31st. Yours in Christ MB

Ray Martinez said:

Nick Matzke

I asked permission from the father (and the girl) to take the photo; the father agreed as long as I took some of the literature.

Did they know you were going to post it on the worldwide Internet?

Next issue:

Here is your message:

Creationism is unsophisticated, ignorance, Fundamentalism.

Darwinism is sophisticated, knowledge, modernity.

In other words you are attempting to convert and coerce by typical misrepresentation.

Plenty of Ph.D.s proclaim the same message of the poor girl that you have exploited. Maybe I should post a picture of arch-evolutionist and Holocaust denier Matt Giwer?

Transparent stuff, Nick.

Ray

----Ray, they are exploiting this little girl. Shame on them! They are deathly afraid to debate the intellectuals on this subject so they have to pick on a little girl. How cowardly!

Creationism is unsophisticated, ignorance, Fundamentalism. Darwinism is sophisticated, knowledge, modernity. In other words you are attempting to convert and coerce by typical misrepresentation.

rescuer said: Ray, they are exploiting this little girl. Shame on them! They are deathly afraid to debate the intellectuals on this subject so they have to pick on a little girl. How cowardly!

Ray & Rescuer...you guys are hilarious. I & other PT posters (different from commenters, which can come from anywhere and do) have put in as much time debating the antievolution "experts" as just about anybody. Read the last several years of PT posts.

We're not picking on the girl, we're picking on the dad and the fundamentalist culture that puts things like "Evolution is a LIE!!" on sandwich boards on 10-year olds who know virtually nothing about this complex and technical topic either way. They have a right to be dumb, and we have a right to criticize them.

Now you are trying to censor my right to take photos and distribute photos of public protests held at public events. Not a good line of argument if you claim to stand by the Constitution...

Nick (Matzke) said: Ray & Rescuer...you guys are hilarious. I & other PT posters (different from commenters, which can come from anywhere and do) have put in as much time debating the antievolution "experts" as just about anybody. Read the last several years of PT posts. We're not picking on the girl, we're picking on the dad and the fundamentalist culture that puts things like "Evolution is a LIE!!" on sandwich boards on 10-year olds who know virtually nothing about this complex and technical topic either way. They have a right to be dumb, and we have a right to criticize them. Now you are trying to censor my right to take photos and distribute photos of public protests held at public events. Not a good line of argument if you claim to stand by the Constitution...

PvM said:

rescuer said: Ray, they are exploiting this little girl. Shame on them! They are deathly afraid to debate the intellectuals on this subject so they have to pick on a little girl. How cowardly!

What intellectuals? And who is afraid? Weird...

We’re not picking on the girl, we’re picking on the dad and the fundamentalist culture that puts things like “Evolution is a LIE!!” on sandwich boards on 10-year olds.

Then put up a picture of the Dad and black out the girls face. Shame on you!

Peter Henderson said: Well Nick, they might not protest on the street about evolution in this part of the world (although they do about other issues such as abortion and gay pride) possibly because the weather is usually crap, but the attitudes towards science are the same: http://www.takeheed.net/BLUEPRINT_website_article.htm [...] I'd say a pretty similar view of evolutionary science to the little girl protesting. Wouldn't you ?

Hey rescuer: have a look at the photos in a newspaper sometime. Or news footage. Get a grip, dude.

What’s your point?

Nick (Matzke) said: Hey rescuer: have a look at the photos in a newspaper sometime. Or news footage. Get a grip, dude.

Hi Peter -- OK I get you now, I agree these attitudes towards science are common in evangelical circles, or at least conservative evangelical circles. Someone said something about polygamy etc. which is what I was arguing against. Stuff is flying from all sides in this thread so I get confused...

rescuer said: Darwinists run from debates. They are deathly afraid of public exposure.

Rescuer Said Darwinists run from debates. They are deathly afraid of public exposure.

Rescuer: who do you think is doing the exploiting and what are your reasons? A father who gets his young daughter to hold up a billboard expressing his views, that she is far too young to evaluate, in the most conspicuous place he could find or the person who photographed the event after asking permission?

rescuer said: Darwinists run from debates. They are deathly afraid of public exposure.

Yes of course any thing in ‘plain sight’ is up for grabs. Pictures of amputees walking down the street. Yes you can film them and put it on youtube for all to see. Or films of a retarded person struggling to talk. Or drawfs waddling. Or disfigured people. It’s all fair game!

Nick (Matzke) said: Ray & Rescuer...you guys are hilarious. I & other PT posters (different from commenters, which can come from anywhere and do) have put in as much time debating the antievolution "experts" as just about anybody. Read the last several years of PT posts. We're not picking on the girl, we're picking on the dad and the fundamentalist culture that puts things like "Evolution is a LIE!!" on sandwich boards on 10-year olds who know virtually nothing about this complex and technical topic either way. They have a right to be dumb, and we have a right to criticize them. Now you are trying to censor my right to take photos and distribute photos of public protests held at public events. Not a good line of argument if you claim to stand by the Constitution...

Ray Martinez said:

Nick (Matzke) said: Ray & Rescuer...you guys are hilarious. I & other PT posters (different from commenters, which can come from anywhere and do) have put in as much time debating the antievolution "experts" as just about anybody. Read the last several years of PT posts. We're not picking on the girl, we're picking on the dad and the fundamentalist culture that puts things like "Evolution is a LIE!!" on sandwich boards on 10-year olds who know virtually nothing about this complex and technical topic either way. They have a right to be dumb, and we have a right to criticize them. Now you are trying to censor my right to take photos and distribute photos of public protests held at public events. Not a good line of argument if you claim to stand by the Constitution...

Nick: you have completely evaded and therefore misrepresented everything I actually said, we all know what this means. http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/12/civil-war.html#comment-174541 Ray

Ray Martinez said: Nick: you have completely evaded and therefore misrepresented everything I actually said, we all know what this means.

fnxtr said:

Yes of course any thing in ‘plain sight’ is up for grabs. Pictures of amputees walking down the street. Yes you can film them and put it on youtube for all to see. Or films of a retarded person struggling to talk. Or drawfs waddling. Or disfigured people. It’s all fair game!

So are you saying this little girl is the equivalent of a disfigured retarded amputee dwarf? Not very charitable of you. I would have thought that if you support her position you would see her in a more noble light.

on a personal note, when I had more time I invested a great deal of effort looking for christians who would seriously argue about scripture or evolution. my short observation is this: see this thing called a comment section? that people can write in anonymously and without engaging in a tortuous registration? IMO almost all creationist claims on the internet don’t offer any such feedback mechanism, particularly one where comments are publicly attached to the “questionable” material

... there is heavy censorship here

"Evolution is a lie. Turn to Jesus." The obvious problem is the father of the girl. He wants people to believe that understanding Evolution and believing in Jesus are mutually exclusive. There are many people who are comfortable with their scientific understanding of Evolution and their religious beliefs. It is obviously hypnotically for this man to lie about Evolution, and ask someone to have moral integrity.

rescuer said: Darwinists run from debates. They are deathly afraid of public exposure.

Dan said:

rescuer said: Darwinists run from debates. They are deathly afraid of public exposure.

Rescuer has his/her facts wrong. Patricia Princehouse, a philosopher at Case Western Reserve University, invited any Intelligent Design advocate to debate at Case on 3 January 2006. William Dembksi expressed a willingness to debate, but wanted to discuss terms. Pricehouse accepted his proposed terms in toto. Dembksi never showed up. Similarly, Dembski never showed up at the Dover trial, and then demanded payment for not showing up!

The tale of the magical diappearing witnesses.

Dembski threatens TMLC with a lawsuit over payment.

My debate with DI Fellow Ray Bohlin.

Wesley R. Elsberry said: The tale of the magical diappearing witnesses. Dembski threatens TMLC with a lawsuit over payment. My debate with DI Fellow Ray Bohlin.

Stanton,

Having them there edifies those who might otherwise think he made a point.

Nick (Matzke) said: Hey rescuer: have a look at the photos in a newspaper sometime. Or news footage. Get a grip, dude.

I agree with the comment from Richard Simons. Scientific issues cannot be solved by debates. If that were the case then we wouldn't need scientists, all we would need are lawyers (and we have plenty of those). For those of you who are intersted in this topic, there is a history of the public debates aired on WOR radio in NYC in the 30's or 40's between Fred Hoyle and George Gamow concerning whether or not the universe had a discrete beginning in time or had existed indefinitely in a steady state with constant creation of matter in intergalactic space. Hoyle derisively coined the term "big bang" to mock Gamow's position. Hoyle was articulate and British. Gamow was tentative and Russian. No question who was winning the debates when Edwin Hubble announced his findings. End of debate. In science debating proves only who is the best debator. Science is not a fair and equal institution where all points of view are valid and presented to a neutral audience where people get to choose which one they prefer and is taught in publically funded schools. If you have importnt evidence, the format is peer reviewed publications so others can see what you did and repeat your findings. This is how science is done in the 21st century.

rescuer said: Darwinists run from debates. They are deathly afraid of public exposure.

Wesley R. Elsberry said: Stanton, Having them there edifies those who might otherwise think he made a point.

If rescuer or Ray demand we debate Nick's claims, this forum is a good place. Nick's original post claimed that the picture is a good demonstration of why creationism continues to persist in the culture. To wit - its proponents believe evolution is anti-christian.

Why don't those opposed offer proof or argument about why they think this claim is incorrect?

Dan said: Rescuer has his/her facts wrong. Patricia Princehouse, a philosopher at Case Western Reserve University, invited any Intelligent Design advocate to debate at Case on 3 January 2006. William Dembksi expressed a willingness to debate, but wanted to discuss terms. Pricehouse accepted his proposed terms in toto. Dembksi never showed up.

Rescuer said: I find this hard to believe. Any URLs or references?

eric said: If rescuer or Ray demand we debate Nick's claims, this forum is a good place. Nick's original post claimed that the picture is a good demonstration of why creationism continues to persist in the culture. To wit - its proponents believe evolution is anti-christian. Why don't those opposed offer proof or argument about why they think this claim is incorrect?

Peter Henderson said:

Dan said: Rescuer has his/her facts wrong. Patricia Princehouse, a philosopher at Case Western Reserve University, invited any Intelligent Design advocate to debate at Case on 3 January 2006. William Dembksi expressed a willingness to debate, but wanted to discuss terms. Pricehouse accepted his proposed terms in toto. Dembksi never showed up.

Rescuer said: I find this hard to believe. Any URLs or references?

I think this is possibly the proposed debate that Dan is referring to rescuer: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohd5uqzlwsU In the end it turned into an excellent talk by Prof. Ken Miller.

(The girl's father) wants people to believe that understanding Evolution and believing in Jesus are mutually exclusive.

FL said:

(The girl's father) wants people to believe that understanding Evolution and believing in Jesus are mutually exclusive.

Any Christian can come to understand evolution's major claims with sufficient study, even at the high school level. Understanding Evolution and believing in Jesus is NOT mutually exclusive at all. The incompatibilities show up with believing in Evolution versus believing in Jesus. Evolution is incompatible with Christianity. And THAT's a topic where evolutionists honestly would rather not get into a serious debate. FL

FL said: Evolution is incompatible with Christianity. And THAT's a topic where evolutionists honestly would rather not get into a serious debate.

No apologies needed, DPR. FL the BTI has many times insisted that anyone who understands and accepts the facts of evolution is not a TRUE CHRISTIAN (tm). For some reason he gets to decide who enters the Kingdom of God. I must have missed the election announcement.

Remnds of a line from Just for Laughs: Religious wars are people kiling each other over who has the best imaginary friend.

FL said:

(The girl's father) wants people to believe that understanding Evolution and believing in Jesus are mutually exclusive.

Any Christian can come to understand evolution's major claims with sufficient study, even at the high school level. Understanding Evolution and believing in Jesus is NOT mutually exclusive at all. The incompatibilities show up with believing in Evolution versus believing in Jesus. Evolution is incompatible with Christianity. And THAT's a topic where evolutionists honestly would rather not get into a serious debate. FL

FL the worlds only True Christian™ said: Any Christian can come to understand evolution’s major claims with sufficient study, even at the high school level. Understanding Evolution and believing in Jesus is NOT mutually exclusive at all. The incompatibilities show up with believing in Evolution versus believing in Jesus. Evolution is incompatible with Christianity. And THAT’s a topic where evolutionists honestly would rather not get into a serious debate.

FL said: Evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

FL said: ... The incompatibilities show up with believing in Evolution versus believing in Jesus.

FL said: And THAT's a topic where evolutionists honestly would rather not get into a serious debate.

FL said: Evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

deep said: This is rather frightening. I feel sorry for the poor girl, hopefully she grows up to know better.

The incompatibilities show up with believing in Evolution versus believing in Jesus. Evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

— FL

Maybe Oregon is closer to Seattle than to San Francisco. Seattle is displacing SF as the liberal wingnut capital of the country. Perhaps, this poor child is just trying to maintain some sense of sanity.

Any Christian can come to understand evolution’s major claims with sufficient study, even at the high school level. Understanding Evolution and believing in Jesus is NOT mutually exclusive at all. The incompatibilities show up with believing in Evolution versus believing in Jesus. Evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

I am disappointed in the quality of troll you have here. Ever thought of advertising ?

PvM said: What a foolish statement. At best you may claim that evolution may be incompatible with a particular form of Christianity. Sigh...

FL said: Evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

FL's problem is that he cannot seperate his belief in Jesus with his belief in the inerrancy of the Bible, a problem sadly common. He can't fathom that one may (as so many Christians do) accept Jesus as one's Lord and savior while recognizing that some (if not all) of the Bible is untrustworthy pap.

This is rather frightening. I feel sorry for the poor girl, hopefully she grows up to know better.

What awful thing do you think will happen to this girl if she believes that we did not evolve from ape-like animals?

There is no such thing as believing in evolution; one either understands and accepts the theory - just as one understands and accepts the theory of gravity or the theory of germs - or one does not understand the theory.

... can someone understand the theory and not accept it?

What awful thing do you think will happen to this girl if she believes that we did not evolve from ape-like animals?

— friend

… can someone understand the theory and not accept it?

— friend

friend said: ... can someone understand the theory and not accept it?

Silver Fox said: Maybe Oregon is closer to Seattle than to San Francisco. Seattle is displacing SF as the liberal wingnut capital of the country. Perhaps, this poor child is just trying to maintain some sense of sanity.

friend said: There is no such thing as believing in evolution; one either understands and accepts the theory - just as one understands and accepts the theory of gravity or the theory of germs - or one does not understand the theory. ... can someone understand the theory and not accept it?

FL demands a great deal more than Jesus ever did. Jesus only required that His followers believe in Him, do good, turn from their sins and the world and love one another. FL requires that they believe in special creation, too. He is horribly mistaken, but more: by demanding that, he drives people away from Christianity. I really don't think that Jesus would be pleased with him.

So there's no need to put the boots into the Christian Church, generally. With people like FL for friends, it sure doesn't need any more enemies.

Silver Fox said: Maybe Oregon is closer to Seattle than to San Francisco. Seattle is displacing SF as the liberal wingnut capital of the country. Perhaps, this poor child is just trying to maintain some sense of sanity.

FL said: Any Christian can come to understand evolution's major claims with sufficient study, even at the high school level. Understanding Evolution and believing in Jesus is NOT mutually exclusive at all. The incompatibilities show up with believing in Evolution versus believing in Jesus. Evolution is incompatible with Christianity. And THAT's a topic where evolutionists honestly would rather not get into a serious debate. FL

So what exactly are you trying to say FL ? That in order to be a proper “born again Christian” one must reject mainstream science and accept a 6,000 year old Earth/Universe and a six-day creation ?

— Peter Henderson

Bobby, I thought you were banned. Still violating terms of services?

— PvM

Ignoring the semantic argument about the word 'believe,' can someone understand a scientific theory and yet not accept it? I think this is actually a good question with important lessons about teaching science in schools.

Science classes should be about imparting understanding of modern science, not necessarily acceptance. Precisely because the class isn't about belief, it is not a forum for every student with a differing opinion to air their views. A focus on understanding is exactly why bogus "weaknesses" and empirically unsupported bullflop such as ID should not be taught: they do not impart any understanding of science, they impart merely a differing belief.

Now, if biology classes were about different beliefs regarding organisms, then ID could be taught. You'd also have to make room for the Christian Science belief that disease is not caused by germs, and all of the variations of the body-has-spiritual-energy belief which underlies practices such as acupuncture, therapeutic touch, etc... But allowing people to talk about what they believe is not what science classes are about, so ID does not belong there any more than these other beliefs do.

This is where the sticker/disclaimer in all science texts comes in. "You are about to embark on a course in natural science. Some people think that science is a search for the truth, particularly for the truth that underlies reality. Some think science is using logic, reason, and rational thought to come up with foolproof statements that can explain away anything seen in the natural world. Others see science as a fair and open minded debate where all points of view are equally valid and each person gets to choose the one he prefers. Finally some see science as a commitment to a philosophy of materialism a belief where nothing exists in the universe except matter in motion under the influence of the blind and indifferent forces of nature for no purpose. In fact science is none of these. Science is a methodology in which questions are asked of the natural universe or some part of it, the answers to these questions coming in the form of experiments and observations. These empirically obtained data must be repeatable, peer reviewable, and publishable. This means that science is limited in its scope, and the theories that explain the data are tentative and subject to modification and even rejection." There is no reason why evolution should be singled out for special criticism under this umbrella. Its only sad that in the USA which has benifitted so much from scientific and technologic hegemony that such disclaimers would be considered. My guess is that those who complain the most about the evils of science and/or evolution (see David Berlinski) would be the last to eliminate technology from their lives. Hypocrites.

Eric wrote:

"Science classes should be about imparting understanding of modern science, not necessarily acceptance."

Exactly. Teachers don't ask their studens if they believe in the law of segregation do they? Why should they? Should that be a question on the test? Why ask if a student believes in evolution? However, if they can't explain gene duplication, pseudogenes and divergence by mutation in response to a question about the origin of gene families then they probably shouldn't pass no matter what they believe.

Students are always free to believe whatever they want. However the right to an uninformed opinion is probably not worth fighting for.

I think we all know that FL will never study up on any science. He is into word games.

Nor will he study the decision at Dover with any comprehension. He is still into word games.

There is a nice interview with Judge John E. Jones III by Jane Gitschier on PLoS Genetics that gives a good summary and overview of these issues.

Maybe some of the creationists who still can’t get it right could at least start by looking at this excellent summary. It may not get them to read anything else, but at least they might come to understand where they stand with respect to the law.

Mike Elzinga said: I think we all know that FL will never study up on any science. He is into word games. Nor will he study the decision at Dover with any comprehension. He is still into word games. There is a nice interview with Judge John E. Jones III by Jane Gitschier on PLoS Genetics that gives a good summary and overview of these issues. Maybe some of the creationists who still can’t get it right could at least start by looking at this excellent summary. It may not get them to read anything else, but at least they might come to understand where they stand with respect to the law.

How 'bout those Sooners?

I did not repent of evolution, and I'm a UO alum. Perhaps my evo-mojo is more potent than yours?

hese empirically obtained data must be repeatable, peer reviewable, and publishable.

---- what are the repeatable data for Modern Evolutionary Theory?

Pardon the repeat comment from the other thread, but to minimize hijacking:

Now that the style is obvious regardless of the name, I recommend that no one reply to our resident troll, but just to the general audience about him if necessary. If you must respond to the PRATTs, (points refuted a thousand times) a simple RTFF (read the fine FAQs) should do.

To Happydays; talk.origins would be a good start. Actually many regularly published periodicals available at your public library are readily available. Many posters here and other evolutionary websites publish peer reviewed articles. At pharyngula they are even flagged as such. good luck.

the pro from dover said: To Happydays; talk.origins would be a good start. Actually many regularly published periodicals available at your public library are readily available. Many posters here and other evolutionary websites publish peer reviewed articles. At pharyngula they are even flagged as such. good luck.

To Phantomreader: You make it seem that Happydays is insincere. I'm shocked. SHOCKED!!!!! I tell you! Where is the Rev. Dr. Lenny Flank when you really need him?

... who specifically wants to no

phantomreader42 said:

the pro from dover said: To Happydays; talk.origins would be a good start. Actually many regularly published periodicals available at your public library are readily available. Many posters here and other evolutionary websites publish peer reviewed articles. At pharyngula they are even flagged as such. good luck.

Of course, the lying sack of shit and its many sockpuppets are utterly incapable of reading any reference at all, no matter how many times such things are pointed out. It would rather die than learn anything.

Why are the Administrators utterly powerless to stop a moronic troll like Bobby the sockpuppeteering twit?

It may be a deep-laid strategy. Booby is so plainly, so painfully obviously a fool and a troll, that his every post serves to discredit creationism far more than the most scholarly dissection of its idiotic ideas ever could.

Dave Luckett said: It may be a deep-laid strategy. Booby is so plainly, so painfully obviously a fool and a troll, that his every post serves to discredit creationism far more than the most scholarly dissection of its idiotic ideas ever could.

I admit that you can't please any of the trolls most of the time. Modern evolutionary theory predicts that lineages of organisms in the fossil records will have closer genomes in their current descendants regardless of the ecological niches and appearances of the descendants. Both fossils and genomes represent repeatable peer reviewable research data in evolutionary biology. As has been demonstrated in many threads in PT and Pharyngula the one puzzling lineage is turtles, but otherwise this has proven quite solidly predictive with the technology available to do a lot more. Please remember: Scientific theories cannot be proven true. They can only be supported. Hypotheses can be proven true. Theories can be proven false in part if not entirely. TPFD

It may be a deep-laid strategy. Booby is so plainly, so painfully obviously a fool and a troll, that his every post serves to discredit creationism far more than the most scholarly dissection of its idiotic ideas ever could.

— Dave Luckett

...who specifically wants to know?

...you are complete stumped

...STILL NO ANSWER

...sixty two and counting

…sixty two and counting

— DS

I would argue that letting ray and rescuer post here is extreme cruelty. It's a sadder and more pathetic spectacle than dwarf-tossing.

Glue-sniffing is a tragedy, not something for heartless scientists to exploit for public amusement.

yeppers said:

Dave Luckett said: It may be a deep-laid strategy. Booby is so plainly, so painfully obviously a fool and a troll, that his every post serves to discredit creationism far more than the most scholarly dissection of its idiotic ideas ever could.

—- what are the repeatable data for Modern Evolutionary Theory? ------------still NO answer!

PvM said: Does Bobby even understand what is meant by 'repeatable'? I doubt it.

yeppers said:

Dave Luckett said: It may be a deep-laid strategy. Booby is so plainly, so painfully obviously a fool and a troll, that his every post serves to discredit creationism far more than the most scholarly dissection of its idiotic ideas ever could.

—- what are the repeatable data for Modern Evolutionary Theory? ------------still NO answer!

PvM said: Does Bobby even understand what is meant by 'repeatable'? I doubt it.

Stanton said:

PvM said: Does Bobby even understand what is meant by 'repeatable'? I doubt it.

He never did, and never will, so can we ban him and flush all of his posts already?

timey said: ---------- I believe some other poster used the term 'repeatable' Looks like another elaborate dodge coming up.

PvM said:

timey said: ---------- I believe some other poster used the term 'repeatable' Looks like another elaborate dodge coming up.

Such as you dodging providing any support for your claims Bobby? Pot kettle black... But predictably Bobby has failed to show that he understands the concept of repeatability or he would not go down this road. Fascinating...

What would be the harm in showing the ‘repeatable data’ so kids accessing this site would be educated?

— Bobby

63 and counting

I know bobby understands repeatability. It repeatedly ignores all evidence. Now it wonders why no one wants to play it's stupid little game anymore. Talk about an elaborate dodge. The kids accessing this site have certainly become educated about how a schizophrenic mind is a terrible thing to waste.

I guess I will assume there is no 'repeatable data'. Knew it was a bluff!

timey said: What would be the harm in showing the 'repeatable data' so kids accessing this site would be educated?

Science Avenger said:

timey said: What would be the harm in showing the 'repeatable data' so kids accessing this site would be educated?

Still fantisizing about the kiddies eh?

timey said: I guess I will assume there is no 'repeatable data'. Knew it was a bluff!

So is this going to be a repeat of the 2600+ posts of useless and aggravating nonsense like last time?

Nick,

Time to pull the plug on the troll of many names once again.

I would argue that letting ray and rescuer post here is extreme cruelty.

— Marion Delgado

timey said: Oh I forgot this site is not appropriate for children...

Science Avenger said:

timey said: Oh I forgot this site is not appropriate for children...

Good, now leave.

64

(that doesn't have to be explained)

It really is more like a low life gathering spot.

yeppers said: Well that really should be explained to people so they do not allow their children to look at this site which claims to be academic. It really is more like a low life gathering spot.

Science Avenger said:

yeppers said: Well that really should be explained to people so they do not allow their children to look at this site which claims to be academic. It really is more like a low life gathering spot.

Fine. Listen up kiddies! This is a site dedicated to the discussion of the battles between evolutionary science and crank pseudosciences like Intelligent Design Creationism. There are many interesting and informative articles here that can educate you about the wonder that is the billion year history of life on earth. However, you just be warned that just like a bank will attract bank robbers, a site defending science against crankery will attract vile low lifes who will stop at nothing to disrupt the conversation, and attempt to promote their pseudoscience. They will babble on inanely, making no attempt to resolve any discussion, sometimes causing thread to balloon to thousands of posts of gibberish. They are the enemies of reason. Some examples of low-life behavior include: 1) Constantly changing handles 2) Asking questions and ignoring the answers 3) Lying about having read scientific papers 4) Paying no attention to who they are conversing with Be on the lookout for this behavior. These low lifes wish to corrupt your pure little minds and make you as vain, ignorant and pathetic as they are, unable to deal with reality, and living in a little fantasy world in their heads. Stay by the nice scientists, they'll protect you. Better?

timey said: I guess I will assume there is no 'repeatable data'.

Dan,

It doesn't know the plural of scientist or evolutionist either. Maybe we should warn the kids about the poor grammar used by the troll of many names here.

DS said: Dan, It doesn't know the plural of scientist or evolutionist either. Maybe we should warn the kids about the poor grammar used by the troll of many names here.

Robin said: There is no such thing as believing in evolution; one either understands and accepts the theory - just as one understands and accepts the theory of gravity or the theory of germs - or one does not understand the theory. ... can someone understand the theory and not accept it?

Can be a complete sentence.

66

Can be a complete sentence.

66

Bobby the sockpuppeteering troll said: There is no such thing as believing in evolution; one either understands and accepts the theory - just as one understands and accepts the theory of gravity or the theory of germs - or one does not understand the theory. --- you really do not see the dislogic in your statement above? It sounds so religious. either ' one understands and accepts the theory' OR one does 'not understand the theory' what a dogmatic statement!! you really do not see it? are you that brainwashed?

uju said:

Dan said:

timey said: I guess I will assume there is no 'repeatable data'.

You must mean "are no 'repeatable data'." Those who don't know that the word "data" is plural don't get free tutoring.

Can be singular or plural. Go back to school!

Stanton said: Why should we believe you and your idiotic ranting? You never displayed an understanding of Evolutionary Biology to begin with, and you've never expressed a desire to understand it.

uju said: ou never displayed an understanding of Evolutionary Biology to begin with, and you’ve never expressed a desire to understand it. ---- I think it is YOU that does not understand it. You have embarrassed yourself consistently here. But you are a humorous fellow!

Bobby the sockpuppeteering troll said: ou never displayed an understanding of Evolutionary Biology to begin with, and you’ve never expressed a desire to understand it. ---- I think it is YOU that does not understand it. You have embarrassed yourself consistently here. But you are a humorous fellow!

PvM said: Actually in addition to being a humorous fellow, he is also quite observant noting not just your ignorance but also your unwillingness to educate yourself. And despite being banned several times now, Bobby continues to embarrass himself with terms of service violations under assumed names. Why?...

uju said:

Dan said:

timey said: I guess I will assume there is no 'repeatable data'.

You must mean "are no 'repeatable data'." Those who don't know that the word "data" is plural don't get free tutoring.

Can be singular or plural. Go back to school!

eric said: Ignoring the semantic argument about the word 'believe,' can someone understand a scientific theory and yet not accept it? I think this is actually a good question with important lessons about teaching science in schools.

eric said: Ignoring the semantic argument about the word 'believe,' can someone understand a scientific theory and yet not accept it? I think this is actually a good question with important lessons about teaching science in schools.

Jim said: Needless to say, rejections of truths simply because of trivial philosophical conclusions is an obtuse thing to do, to say the least. So, if you were to classify creation science, it would best be taught in a philosophy of religion class, or a theology-related philosophy class/seminar (church?). Science class is not the place for philosophy or theology. ID clearly falls into this category.

Jim said:

eric said: Ignoring the semantic argument about the word 'believe,' can someone understand a scientific theory and yet not accept it? I think this is actually a good question with important lessons about teaching science in schools.

Philosophically, I think it is not contradictory to understand a theory and still reject it. For example, you could understand quantum mechanics, but reject it (like einstien did with his famous "god does not play dice."). Please keep in mind, though, that i'm not making any inferences about theology, just pointing to a well known phrase to prove my purely philosophical point) Anyways, we now know that most of quantum mechanics einstien railed against have been proven to be the true, or at least much more accurate that anything before it. I would suggest the following though: Just because there is a fact (evolution or quantum mechanics, for example), doesn't mean that you have to follow it through to it's full conclusion. For example, you could make the case that quantum mechanics justifies existential philosophy, and proves that everything is just chance, and this controls our fate and our value system, and that nothing has any worth. Or, you could, like creationists, believe that because evolution is correct, follow it through to its philosophical ends (NOT scientific ends), and conclude that there is no god involved in the world, that the bible is false, and that therefore the teachings of jesus, and therefor the entire church is wrong. Additionally, people have no souls, and therefore, from a theological point of view, there is no end justice or fairness, etc. So in short, understanding a theory, and stil rejecting is possible, but only on philosophical or theological grounds. Science makes no such judgements at all, but only finds truths. So if you were to classify creation science, it would best be taught in a philosophy of religion class, of a theological-related class. Science class is not the place for philosophy (even philosophy of science) or theology.

Playing Old Nick's Lawyer for a second, what about the ether and phlogiston?

Can you understand a theory and reject without having a better one with which to replace it?

It looks these days like you can reject a robust scientific theory without rejecting everything connected to it, like... well, everything else. Biology, chemistry, physics, geology, astronomy, they're all pretty tightly interwoven now.

ooops.
...like you *can't* reject a robust....

Personally I think that those folks who wish to reject a theory without offering a valid substitute explanation for a given phenomenon or at least a valid scientific explanation for the rejection are pretty much in the same boat as those folk who criticize a theory but don't really understand it. What does such a rejection do for understanding anyway?

fnxtr said: Playing Old Nick's Lawyer for a second, what about the ether and phlogiston?

Philosophically, I think it is not contradictory to understand a theory and still reject it. For example, you could understand quantum mechanics, but reject it (like einstien did with his famous “god does not play dice.”). Please keep in mind, though, that i’m not making any inferences about theology, just pointing to a well known phrase to prove my purely philosophical point)

— Jim

Unfortunately, part of this really revolves around the motive. Most of the posters here really are discussing when it's appropriate to reject a theory, while understanding it. That's the way science works, given that all theories are tentative (i.e. potentially falsifiable).

That of course depends on data, which might show that a theory is in fact falsified. I would consider that geocentricity, for instance, was a valid scientific theory, especially after Ptolemy looked for, and did not find, stellar parallax. He performed a clever test of geocentrism, not realizing that stellar distances were too large to observe parallax given the primitive nature of 2nd century AD technology. But his test did support geocentrism. Aside from various social and religious problems, new data acquired by Copernicus and Galileo (among others) wound up overturning that prevailing theory. So I would answer, yes, if you have valid data showing that the prevailing theory is incorrect, then your understanding of the theory requires you to reject it.

Of course, the troll's original question asks nothing of the sort. It wants to reject the theory because it is uncomfortable with it, almost certainly because the theory (and of course we're talking evolution and all that it implies) conflicts with it's religious beliefs. Data was never part of the plan. Well of course the troll is free to do that, but it can't pretend (to PT regulars who are science-savvy) that it is doing it on any scientific justification.

And of course the troll has repeatedly demonstrated that not only does it not understand any of the principles of the theory of evolution, but also it does not understand any of the principles of science either.

Or of civil discourse.

Dammit, Mike, you pretty much said the same thing I did!

GvlGeologist, FCD said: Dammit, Mike, you pretty much said the same thing I did!

Mike Elzinga said: It is not clear that Einstein actually rejected quantum theory as much as he felt it was incomplete. After all, he used the ideas freely in a lot of his work on the photoelectric effect for which he won the Nobel Prize. He also contributed to quantum statistics (Bose-Einstein statistics) when he explained the heat capacities of solids (these go to zero at 0 K instead of remaining constant as classical physics suggests). There is a similar situation today with respect to the Standard Model. As precise as this model is, it leaves many things unexplained (e.g., the masses of particles). There are also the conflicts of quantum mechanics with general relativity. Yet scientists aren’t rejecting these theories. They explain too much too precisely. However, they are fairly sure that these aren’t the whole picture. Hence the research into string theory and other multidimensional theories to find deeper explanations for what are “put in by hand” in the current theories. On the other hand, the ID/Creationists reject much of science not only because they don’t understand it, but also because they have to bend concepts to be consistent with sectarian dogma. When they do this, none of it works. Hence, no research in ID/Creationism.

Why? Because someone who fully understands a given theory understands that a theory stands or falls on whether it is falsified, not whether the understanding person rejects it or even rejects parts of it.

— Robin

Robin said: Bottom line, anyone who "rejects" the theory of evolution clearly doesn't understand it or science.

Here’s another interesting thought. The comparisons all the other posters have made to Newtonian and QM should give nightmares to creationists. QM superceded NM yet we still use NM because its so damn applicable to many problems.

— eric

Mike Elzinga said: Problems arise when naive users of such ideas extrapolate them beyond the ranges for which they have been developed.

I just want to note for the record that a LOVE the arrogant idiocy display in the above question. It’s like asking whether one can understand the principles of submarine design and not accept that submarines can go underwater

----you made a fool of yourself yet again! One can understand the theory of say astrology or phrenology without having to accept that theory as valid. You really cant see that?

Booby again demonstrates that he doesn't understand the word "theory".

Dave Luckett said: Booby again demonstrates that he doesn't understand the word "theory".

Bobby the Sockpuppeteering Troll said:

I just want to note for the record that a LOVE the arrogant idiocy display in the above question. It’s like asking whether one can understand the principles of submarine design and not accept that submarines can go underwater

----you made a fool of yourself yet again! One can understand the theory of say astrology or phrenology without having to accept that theory as valid. You really cant see that?

OK bobby: A person who understands the Theory of Evolution (you fail here) and the case -pro and con- for the Theory (you fail here, too) cannot reasonably (you really fail here) reject the Theory.

Even by your standards, your latest efforts were stupid. Astrology and Phrenology never rose to the level of Theory in the scientific sense of the term.

tresmal said: Even by your standards, your latest efforts were stupid. Astrology and Phrenology never rose to the level of Theory in the scientific sense of the term.

tresmal said: OK bobby: A person who understands the Theory of Evolution (you fail here) and the case -pro and con- for the Theory (you fail here, too) cannot reasonably (you really fail here) reject the Theory.

Even by your standards, your latest efforts were stupid. Astrology and Phrenology never rose to the level of Theory in the scientific sense of the term.

Re: rules of thumb. Purely my opinion, but most creationists don’t think in terms of utility. They’re more concerned with philosophical Truth. At least, I think that’s the case. It would explain why creos think a list of things evolution can’t yet explain is relevant. Rather than measure value in terms of solving real-world problems, they want to measure value in terms of how a theory matches up to a list of things they know to be true. To a creationist, a theory is better if it matches up more…regardless of how useless it may be.

— eric

And despite being banned several times now, Bobby continues to embarrass himself with terms of service violations under assumed names. Why?

Astrology and Phrenology never rose to the level of Theory in the scientific sense of the term.

___________ why? show the lurkers you know what you are talking about!

Michael Behe said that if one were to change the definition of science to allow Intelligent Design Theory as a science, one would wind up viewing astrology as a science under that same altered definition.

----------he did not say that! misquoting and quote-mining again. another slimey deceptive technique.

_________Was Lamarckism a scientific theory?

Mike Elzinga said:

Why? Because someone who fully understands a given theory understands that a theory stands or falls on whether it is falsified, not whether the understanding person rejects it or even rejects parts of it.

— Robin

And this is where evidence becomes important.

In all my years of following the ID/Creationists (since the 1970s), I have never encountered one that understands the meaning of evidence. It’s all exegesis, hermeneutics, etymology, and looking at scriptures written in other languages; namely, all word games. That’s their shtick.

They selectively reject (as FL and a few others demonstrate) evidence AND theories that contradict their preconceived notions

------- be specific: which evidence is rejected?

eric said:

Robin said: Bottom line, anyone who "rejects" the theory of evolution clearly doesn't understand it or science.

Well, otherwise sane people can believe some very strange things. Consistency of belief does not appear to be a feature designed into humans. :) I agree with pretty much all of the posters here (including you, Robin). However, my point was that limiting science class to understanding (vice belief) is a strategy that supports mainstream science. Focus classroom discussion on how we use the theories that best allow us to describe, manipulate, and predict the behavior of the world. Let students draw whatever ultimate philosophical conclusions they want about these theories...outside of class. This will eliminate all sorts of issues. Here's another interesting thought. The comparisons all the other posters have made to Newtonian and QM should give nightmares to creationists. QM superceded NM yet we still use NM because its so damn applicable to many problems. Analogously, any theory that replaces TOE as a 'deeper' understanding of how the world works is not likely to supplant it everywhere - TOE will remain, like NM, too damn useful in too many situations. And like QM agreeing with NM at large scales, any post-evolutionary theory is likely to agree completely with evolutionary theory predictions for a very large set of observations. Bottom line - claiming that TOE is wrong won't make it disappear from biology any more than QM made NM disappear from physics. There is no reason to think scientists will stop using it even if they agree that its wrong. :)

Logic is, sadly not emphasized in our teaching. I think of all the concepts ever put forth, logic should be upheld as the most important. On it, one can survive and understand just about everything.

------ one reason is that concepts are taught as irrefutable. for instance Darwinism. no criticism of it is allowed. nothing that is taught can be questioned. its all just rote. its more indoctrination than education

69

... ignore it until it is flushed it once again

Robin said: I would be all for reversing this philosophy; teach our children how to think and how and why certain approaches to problems tend to work and hope they learn some facts along the way.

I could care less if 1 in 1 million high school students knew when the Magna Carta was signed or when Newton published Principia. However I think at least 7 in 10 students should understand the basic events that led up to the Magna Carta and why it is such an important document.

eric said:

Robin said: I would be all for reversing this philosophy; teach our children how to think and how and why certain approaches to problems tend to work and hope they learn some facts along the way.

I think we need the right mix. Scientists memorize lots of facts - not just out of convience, but for basic competence and lab safety. I'm a bit afraid that claiming science is all about reasoning would swing the pendulum too far the other way. So yeah, spend more time on reasoning and critical thinking, but don't let any student come out of chemistry class thinking its acceptable to google the atomic number of Carbon instead of just knowing it. I would not trust a student to safely handle HCl if they did not know - in their heads - its basic chemical properties.

I could care less if 1 in 1 million high school students knew when the Magna Carta was signed or when Newton published Principia. However I think at least 7 in 10 students should understand the basic events that led up to the Magna Carta and why it is such an important document.

Here's the problem with that statement - you can't even begin to guess at which events contributed to the development of the MC without knowing which events came before it. This requires knowledge of an approximate date for both the MC and the event(s) in question.

The same analogy is true in science: facts supply necessary background information which your reason needs, or else you are very likely to reason to a wrong conclusion. The difference between the two disciplines is, if you don't learn basic facts in history class, you only injure your pride.

Robin said: I don't think one needs a specific understanding of the dates to be able to discuss relative cultural outlooks.

...in the absence of knowing this, the fact that the MG was issued in 1215 amounts to nothing.

eric said:

Robin said: I don't think one needs a specific understanding of the dates to be able to discuss relative cultural outlooks.

Yes, one does. Because a cultural outlook may be the result of an event or a cause of it, and the only difference may be sequence. One needs to know whether an event happened before 1215 or after 1215 to reason whether it could possibly have influenced what happened in 1215.

...in the absence of knowing this, the fact that the MG was issued in 1215 amounts to nothing.

It tells you that events that happened after 1215 did not influence the writing of the Magna Carta.

For instance, the U.S. Constitution also mentions the right of habeas corpus. It is dates, not "relative cultural outlooks," that make it very obvious which document influenced the other.

Robin said: I don't find that the specific date is of more importance than the relative sequence of events.

eric said:

Robin said: I don't find that the specific date is of more importance than the relative sequence of events.

A sequence of events is still a bunch of facts that are necessary to know before you can reason about history. If you think inexact chronological relationships are fine, okay, but this doesn't refute my point that teaching students to reason and letting them pick up the facts 'along the way' is a bad idea. Thinking skills without an accurate fact base leads to "garbage in, garbage out" reasoning. And humans suffer from confirmation bias, which means the "garbage in" will generally be retained a lot longer than it should. Which is why you have to include accurate facts early, to make sure garbage doesn't get in their brains in the first place. All of which is true for science as well as history. I agree with you that right now U.S. H.S. science overemphasizes rote memorization, but changing the focus from 'almost all facts' to 'almost all reason' swings the pendulum too far. Letting students look everything up does not prepare them to be good scientists. It doesn't allow them to function safely in a lab setting. It doesn't give them any practice at memorizing - a skill useful for science. And it gives them an incorrect view of science. Scentific fields probably don't require the memorization of, say, a foreign language, but dispensing with rote learning altogether does not do the kids any favors.

. My statement was clearly too strong in favor of thinking

The "you" I referred to, by the way, refers to both eric and Robin.

By the way, what are the chances that a thoughtful discussion like this would occur on UD or other creationist/ID websites?

Robin said: There does need to be a happy medium though, which we are currently far from.

On history, at least - I can't speak for teaching science - you do have to have a stock of facts. But history is not the facts. Facts are like the bricks and lumber, tiles and pipes, wiring and plaster, that goes into building a house. They are real things and they must be dealt with, and they must be employed according to their real properties, which must be familiar to the builder. But the same materials can build different houses - and history is the house, not the materials used to build it.

Different houses can be built, and they compete. But only one house, only one theory, perfectly fits the environment of nature. Perhaps history allows more, because human societies are by definition not natural. I'm not sure, though.

GvlGeologist, FCD said: This is taken out of context, but reading it still horrifies me:

. My statement was clearly too strong in favor of thinking

Having said that, it is an interesting conversation you're having, so I'll go back to lurking...

Robin said:

GvlGeologist, FCD said: This is taken out of context, but reading it still horrifies me:

. My statement was clearly too strong in favor of thinking

Having said that, it is an interesting conversation you're having, so I'll go back to lurking...

Wait Gvl, why does it horrify you? I think Eric is correct - teaching that leans totally on thinking is likely just as bad as teaching that leans totally on facts. I think my initial statement sounded like that's what I was proposing, so I retract that and offer the compromise that we need MORE thinking taught, but not (as Eric demonstrated) at the expense of all facts.

I think already that thinking is de-emphasized far too much in the educational system already.

GvlGeologist, FCD said: Sorry for the long answer, but you did ask!

_________Was Lamarckism a scientific theory?

Astrology is not a scientific theory, phrenology is not a scientific theory?

Well is Lamarkism a scientific theory?

There is a very good reason they will not answer this one!!!

Bobby the Sockpuppeteering Troll trolled: _________Was Lamarckism a scientific theory? Astrology is not a scientific theory, phrenology is not a scientific theory? Well is Lamarckism a scientific theory? There is a very good reason they will not answer this one!!!

The reason no one will respond to bobby anymore is because this is alias number 70 for it (and that is just since I have been keeping track). Why would anyone respond to someone who shows disrespect for every poster here by using 70 aliases? If bobby wants anyone to take it seriously it should at the very least choose one name and stick to it. If it can't be bothered to do that why would anyone respond to anything it says or asks?

As the number of bobby aliases approaches three digits, the number of thoughtful worthwhile comments he has made has yet to reach single digits.

Or i=1/P

Where i is bits of information (oh yes please let's go there again)and P is number of posts.

This girl and her father have a right to believe what they want. I am glad she is being educated by her father. He at least offers hope. What do you have to offer? Death!Thats it that is all there is little girl you go into a grave and rot.

Tricia said: This girl and her father have a right to believe what they want. I am glad she is being educated by her father. He at least offers hope. What do you have to offer? Death!Thats it that is all there is little girl you go into a grave and rot.

Tricia, I'll make this as simple as I can: Evolution does not equal atheism.

tresmal said: Tricia, I'll make this as simple as I can: Evolution does not equal atheism.

Tricia said: This girl and her father have a right to believe what they want.

I just came across the pamphlet I got. The website it refers to is http://www.charityministries.org

GvlGeologist, FCD said: in teaching both at University and at Community College levels for the past 20 years or so, I encounter far too many students who really, honestly, believe that an education consists of memorizing a database of facts, without any real understanding of the implications of them.

The photo that started this post is probably a good example of this. I think it is highly unlikely that the girl (or her father) will ever really think, even if they learn the facts, about evolution.

In those two reports you will find many quotes from two fundamentalist biology textbooks that explicitly tell students to trust the bible over their own analyses or the findings of science. That’s not just imperfect teaching - that’s malice.

— eric

deep said: This is rather frightening. I feel sorry for the poor girl, hopefully she grows up to know better.