Over 800 scientists Stand against Language critical of Evolution

From the article:

"'Evolution is not fact. Evolution is a theory and, as such, cannot be proven,' Board Vice Chairman David Bradley told The Houston Chronicle earlier this summer. 'Students need to be able to jump to their own conclusions.'"

No. Comment.

it's kind of terrifying to see the creationists discussing gradualism as something students need to question, and completely conflate the sort of "gradual" a breeder would see over successive generations with the sort of "gradual" a paleontologist might see over geological time

maybe the creationists have a sort-of point ... it seems some extremely basic points not being communicated to creationist school children come back to bite us in the ass

Why does the theory(sic) of evolution have to be protected, like the national churches used to protect their dogmata from debate? (In the UK not just the RCs but the Free Churches were banned from the Anglican universities.)

Just answer the simple questions. Like why there are 6,7 billion humans alive today & no evolution. If you have an answer, just tell the children.

snaxalotl said: maybe the creationists have a sort-of point ... it seems some extremely basic points not being communicated to creationist school children come back to bite us in the ass

novparl said: Why does the theory(sic) of evolution have to be protected, like the national churches used to protect their dogmata from debate? (In the UK not just the RCs but the Free Churches were banned from the Anglican universities.) Just answer the simple questions. Like why there are 6,7 billion humans alive today & no evolution. If you have an answer, just tell the children.

novparl said: Why does the theory(sic) of evolution have to be protected, like the national churches used to protect their dogmata from debate? (In the UK not just the RCs but the Free Churches were banned from the Anglican universities.) Just answer the simple questions. Like why there are 6,7 billion humans alive today & no evolution. If you have an answer, just tell the children.

Bah, having all those html tags in my posts make it impossible to proof-read.

Ah, it was the tags. OK.

Lactose intolerance - is it evolving at the moment? Similarly, the theory about the 2nd chromo must refer to the past. Are our chromosomes evolving? Which ones? Remember, when one human evolves something, all the other humans have to die out. Otherwise there'd be far more human variation. People with one eye, 3 fingers on one hand and 6 on the other etc.

novparl said: Remember, when one human evolves something, all the other humans have to die out.

novparl said: Ah, it was the tags. OK. Lactose intolerance - is it evolving at the moment? Similarly, the theory about the 2nd chromo must refer to the past. Are our chromosomes evolving? Which ones? Remember, when one human evolves something, all the other humans have to die out. Otherwise there'd be far more human variation. People with one eye, 3 fingers on one hand and 6 on the other etc.

I hope it is explained better elsewhere, but this statement bothers me:

"...encourage valid critical thinking and scientific reasoning by leaving out all references to 'strengths and weaknesses,' which politicians have used to introduce supernatural explanations into science courses;..."

Even non-creationists who are suspicious of science will wonder "how does leaving out 'strengths and weaknesses' encourage valid critical thinking?"

Somewhere it ought to be emphasized that:

1. The real strengths and weaknesses have been scrutinized by 1000s of scientists for 150 years, each and every one hoping to be the next Darwin (& thus "dethrone" him).

2. The so-called "strengths and weaknesses" promoted by anti-evolution activist groups are nothing but long-refuted misrepresentations "designed" to promote unreasonable doubt of evolution, as well as "supernatural explanations" (which is an oxymoron).

3. Unless the activists demonstrate that they will fully cover the refutations of those "weaknesses" - and every indication from their publications is that they will censor them - they have no place in a science class, especially under the pretense of "critical analysis."

4. Every student is still free to examine both the real "strengths and weaknesses" and the phony ones on his own time.

Hows about this, novparl: you show me how, logically, small changes cannot add up to large changes over time, and I'll give you a cookie.

Take your time. I got all night to wait for you to make an ass of yourself. again.

Can anyone tell me where novparl’s misconception comes from?

— Dan

Oh, the sound of silence. You know what that means?

No cookie for you.

Unsuccessful troll is unsuccessful.

I just took a look at the signatures under "other Texas scientists" and it seems to be a really mixed bag. There are people who do not appear to be scientists at all (I immediately noticed one lawyer), and, on the other hand, there seem to be a number of faculty at Texas schools.

JimmyJ said: Or maybe you were talking about how Europeans developed the ability to digest milk well into adult hood, while other groups of humans haven't. (couldn't find the link for you, but lactose intolerant people are pretty common.)

I could go on, but seriously, I don't you'd listen anyway.

People with one eye, 3 fingers on one hand and 6 on the other etc.

Remember, when one human evolves something, all the other humans have to die out. Otherwise there’d be far more human variation. People with one eye, 3 fingers on one hand and 6 on the other etc.

novparl said: Why does the theory(sic) of evolution have to be protected, like the national churches used to protect their dogmata from debate? (In the UK not just the RCs but the Free Churches were banned from the Anglican universities.) Just answer the simple questions. Like why there are 6,7 billion humans alive today & no evolution. If you have an answer, just tell the children.

novparl said: Lactose intolerance - is it evolving at the moment?

Similarly, the theory about the 2nd chromo must refer to the past. Are our chromosomes evolving?

Remember, when one human evolves something, all the other humans have to die out.

Otherwise there'd be far more human variation. People with one eye, 3 fingers on one hand and 6 on the other etc.

Looks like they are understanding pretty good, folks. The exact phrase “strengths and weaknesses” may surely be dead, but those science-based critical-thinking amendments are working out strong and good at this time.

— FL

One eye? Ye have me on that one, matey!!
Was it me eyepatch? Next thing y'know, we'll be down to one leg, like Long John Silver, we will! Aaaaarrrgh!

novparl said: Ah, it was the tags. OK. Lactose intolerance - is it evolving at the moment? Similarly, the theory about the 2nd chromo must refer to the past. Are our chromosomes evolving? Which ones? Remember, when one human evolves something, all the other humans have to die out. Otherwise there'd be far more human variation. People with one eye, 3 fingers on one hand and 6 on the other etc.

WERE YOU THERE? DID YOU SEE IT?

"Is anyone sure they actually have a brain? I mean, how many of us have ever seen our own brain? In fact, except for those in the medical profession, how many of us have ever seen anyone else's brain? And even if some of us have brains, how does that prove we all do?"

THAT'S SILLY.

"Yes, but at least it's on purpose."

Cheers -- MrG / http://gvgpd.proboards.com

I doubt that there will be a human speciation event in the forseeable future. However, Hardy-Weinberg conditions are not universally present among human populations. Therefore human evolution is occuring even as we type.

Frank J said: Of course evolution has weaknesses. Every scientific explanation does. Unfortunately, every conceivable alternative to evolution is nothing but weaknesses. That's why you people are learning to say as little as possible about your mutually contradictory alternatives.

Of course evolution has weaknesses.

....Perhaps what the 21st Century Science Coalition fears is criticism of a naturalistic Darwinistic worldview, the view that science has explained (or will someday) that life and everything is simply an accident of chemistry and physics. That worldview, cherished by some in the scientific community and promoted heavily in the proposed Earth and Space Science TEKS standards, has several serious scientific weaknesses that students deserve to understand. It is not enough to let statements like “most scientists believe . . .” put an end to critical thinking. To be prepared for science in the 21st century, students must understand why some scientists accept, and others doubt, particular theories based on the nature of the evidence and the magnitude of the phenomena being explained. The ideas embedded in evolutionary theory are too important to treat superficially. Let’s teach more about evolution, not less, and give the students of Texas enough scientific evidence to decide for themselves. -- Baylor chemistry professor Dr. Charles Garner, 11-19-2008

FL said: Then honestly, Frank J, there is nothing wrong with discussing them in the science classroom along with the strenghs of evolution. Same for any other scientific theory. The idea is education, not indoctrination.

I think we need to make sure we discuss weaknesses in other venues of education as well. We can start with astronomy -- are we really sure the Moon isn't made of green cheese?

I mean, there's room for scientific doubt. Only a handful of people have ever been there, and there's considerable suspicion that the whole Moon program was a hoax. And medicine of course, we need to show how dangerous vaccination really is. Not to mention history -- why, public school history classes don't mention any of the large numbers of black folk who fought for the Confederacy.

Let's hear it for "academic freedom"!

FL said:

Of course evolution has weaknesses.

Then honestly, Frank J, there is nothing wrong with discussing them in the science classroom along with the strenghs of evolution. Same for any other scientific theory. The idea is education, not indoctrination.

Why does the theory(sic) of evolution have to be protected, like the national churches used to protect their dogmata from debate? (In the UK not just the RCs but the Free Churches were banned from the Anglican universities.)

Like why there are 6,7 billion humans alive today & no evolution. If you have an answer, just tell the children.

Well, on a kind-of related note, they're playing the persecution card again. Never mind that the persecution claim is complete bull...

Then honestly, Frank J, there is nothing wrong with discussing them in the science classroom along with the strengths of evolution. Same for any other scientific theory. The idea is education, not indoctrination.

Reynold said: Well, on a kind-of related note, they're playing the persecution card again. Never mind that the persecution claim is complete bull...

FL said: Then honestly, Frank J, there is nothing wrong with discussing them in the science classroom along with the strenghs of evolution. Same for any other scientific theory.

The idea is education, not indoctrination.

Then honestly, Frank J, there is nothing wrong with discussing them in the science classroom along with the strenghs of evolution. Same for any other scientific theory.

— FL

Actually, there is something wrong with it. It’s not science, and doesn’t deserve to take up valuable time in a science classroom. Beyond that, the anti-evolution alternatives are also anti-science, and teaching children anti-science will only confuse them about the genuine science they should have been learning in the first place.

— Wheels

The biggest weakness of Creationism/Intelligent Design Theory is not that either form is wholly incapable of explaining or teaching, or doing anything beyond fostering crippling ignorance and pernicious anti-intellectual sentiment, but, Creationism/Intelligent Design Theory‘s sole purpose is to foster crippling ignorance and pernicious anti-intellectual sentiment.

— Stanton

Real “strengths and weaknesses” should be discussed - and are, especially at the college level.

Alas all this consideration of the weaknesses of abiogenesis is rather a distraction. Anybody who investigates abiogenesis knows perfectly well and admits that we've only got a subset of the bricks there:

http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin_21.html

I would be delighted if my little essay on abiogenesis was handed out to high-school students!
And believe me, it does discuss the weaknesses!
But it also discusses the failings of the criticisms.

Of course, it can be pointed out that the vast bulk of evolutionary theory works precisely the same no matter how life got started in the first place -- but that is irrelevant.

The reality of the matter is that discussions of the validity of RNA world or the like are not really what "teach the weaknesses" is all about -- it's about "teach the Darwin-bashing" with a textbook like OF PANDAS & PEOPLE / THE DESIGN OF LIFE or UNDERSTAND EVOLUTION or with a package of slides and handouts along exactly the same lines -- that is, effectively a slightly sanitized full package of standard OEC TOBA (Tired Old Bogus Arguments) -- provided by your friendly neighborhood Discovery Institute.

Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

Evolution observed for centuries? Human beings have been doing it for millenia! That's why we have corn to eat.

Almost all of the food we eat today has been deliberately evolved by humans. How can we do this if evolution doesn't exist in nature?

veritas36 said: Evolution observed for centuries? Human beings have been doing it for millenia! That's why we have corn to eat. Almost all of the food we eat today has been deliberately evolved by humans. How can we do this if evolution doesn't exist in nature?

386sx said:

veritas36 said: Evolution observed for centuries? Human beings have been doing it for millenia! That's why we have corn to eat. Almost all of the food we eat today has been deliberately evolved by humans. How can we do this if evolution doesn't exist in nature?

I think what a creationist would say about that would be that the corn was "intelligently designed" by intelligent designers. What they have a problem wrapping their brainwashed minds around is that "designers" don't necessarily have to be "intelligent". Evolution can be a "designer" too.

FL said:

Real “strengths and weaknesses” should be discussed - and are, especially at the college level.

So discuss 'em at the high school level as well. One of the biology textbooks currently used in my hometown school district, for example, introduces students to the "RNA World" hypothesis but does NOT mention any of the problems with it. Doesn't give the student ANY indication of any troubles with it. And yet, as the late Leslie Orgel has so eloquently written, not only are there serious weaknesses and problems associated with the notion of "RNA World" hypothesis. but they are likely to remain for quite a good long while. So what's wrong with supporting science standards that give the biology teacher the legal freedom to openly teach and discuss some of those weaknesses and problems with the biology class, as time allows? Same thing for when the class arrives at the textbook section that talks about "Primordial Soup" or "Miller-Urey experiment", for example. You dislike "censorship of education", is that right? Then let's start right there, with the easy stuff. Let's let those teachers tell both sides of the science story when it's applicable, even in high school. Let 'em give the up-to-date scientific information that the canned textbook fails to give, including weaknesses. Let's leave it to the science teachers themselves to decide how much time to spend on such things. Stop aligning yourself with those hardline evolutionists who simply want to censor out any mention of weaknesses, problems, blank spots, etc. The improvements being proposed in Texas, doesn't allow for teaching any religion in science class. Nor creationism, Nor ID. It's just about cutting out the censorship and promoting critical thinking skills as a part of science literacy, that's all. You can honestly support those efforts and still be pro-science, Frank J. Try it! FL

On this "censorship" business -- as has been pointed out repeatedly, Darwin-bashers are free to write books, set up websites, even teach their materials in their schools and home schooling. What they are not free to do is peddle their wares (using "equal time", "teach the controversy", "teach the weaknesses", or next year's ploy to crack the door open) through the public education system on the taxpayer's nickel.

An interesting analogy: it's perfectly legal to print your own money. Fact. It's done in various places in Europe -- as a promotional gimmick, customers are handed a "local currency" that they can use to buy goods and services at outlets that are in on the promotion. The local currency may even be convertible into Euros. But it is not legal tender and no one is required to accept it as proper payment.

If Darwin-bashers want to come up with their own scientific "funny money" -- creation science, intelligent design, whatever -- they can do so as much as they please. But it's still funny money. The law is does not
recognize it as the real thing, because it's not.

Cheers -- MrG / http://gvgpd.proboards.com

So then, FL, what sort of "weaknesses" of evolution would you teach?

That because scientists contradict the Bible, science and scientists are wrong? That the miraculous birth of Jesus Christ miraculously disproves "descent with modification" even though people observe it happening all the time, such as with antibiotic resistant bacteria?

Stanton said: So then, FL, what sort of "weaknesses" of evolution would you teach?

On the organization's blog site, staff member Robert Crowther pointed out that the "strengths and weaknesses" language was adopted by the Texas Board of Education over a decade ago, long before the Dover case, and that debate over it has been going on across the nation since then.

So discuss ‘em at the high school level as well. One of the biology textbooks currently used in my hometown school district, for example, introduces students to the “RNA World” hypothesis but does NOT mention any of the problems with it. Doesn’t give the student ANY indication of any troubles with it.

— FL

FL wrote:

"So what’s wrong with supporting science standards that give the biology teacher the legal freedom to openly teach and discuss some of those weaknesses and problems with the biology class, as time allows?"

How can any science teacher anywhere be prevented from presenting good science, strenghts, weaknesses and all? Why in the world would anyone need to have science standards giving them the right to do what they already have the right to do? And why do they only need these standards with regards to evolution? Why don't they need standards giving them the option of discussing the weaknesses of calculus or economics or history?

What's wrong with trying to send the message through arbitrary, inappropriatte and unnescessary standards that substituting of one's personal religious views for science is acceptable? Well, what if it isn't your religion that they try to push?

The “weaknesses” that exist belong to discredited “scientific theories” such as Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design Creationism; all of these are worthy of mention only in a history and philosophy of science course, or a history of religious thought course, not a high school or college science course.

— John Kwok

FL said:

Real “strengths and weaknesses” should be discussed - and are, especially at the college level.

So discuss 'em at the high school level as well.

One of the biology textbooks currently used in my hometown school district, for example, introduces students to the "RNA World" hypothesis but does NOT mention any of the problems with it. Doesn't give the student ANY indication of any troubles with it.

So what's wrong with supporting science standards that give the biology teacher the legal freedom to openly teach and discuss some of those weaknesses and problems with the biology class, as time allows?

Then let's start right there, with the easy stuff. Let's let those teachers tell both sides of the science story when it's applicable, even in high school.

Stop aligning yourself with those hardline evolutionists who simply want to censor out any mention of weaknesses, problems, blank spots, etc.

The improvements being proposed in Texas, doesn't allow for teaching any religion in science class. Nor creationism, Nor ID. It's just about cutting out the censorship and promoting critical thinking skills as a part of science literacy, that's all.

You can honestly support those efforts and still be pro-science, Frank J.

novparl, you should view January edition of Scientific Ammerican: http://www.sciam.com/sciammag/?contents=2009-01

check out wahy DNA can be used in identying an individual more accuratealy than finger prints

For instance—as the CSI franchise of television shows has popularized—law-enforcement agencies now commonly use evolutionary analyses in their investigations. Knowledge of how different genes evolve determines the kind of information they can extract from DNA evidence . Part of this is based on the accumulation of mutations in DNA over the eons—underlies applications such as the DNA analyses used in criminal investigations.

accumulation of mutations is evolution

now if evolution were true then we should be able to find many types of Hominid fossils, what was that you said, we did?
wow, so many, but my pastor said there was no fossil evidence, that the devil did it!
Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Orrorin tugenensis, Ardipithecus ,Ramidus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Kenyanthropus platyops,
Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus garhi,
Australopithecus aethiopicus, Australopithecus robustus,
Australopithecus boisei, Homo habilis, Homo georgicus,
Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, Homo antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo floresiensis,
Homo sapiens

Wheels said: See, this sort of thing is a problem for those who want to indoctrinate others into their own religious beliefs through the law. A state law in Illinois was stuck down recently because it required teachers to explain what "prayer" is when informing students about the moment of silence. Of course, the decision is being spun off as "ILLINOIS COURT BANS MOMENT OF SILENCE!" The problem isn't even with having a mandatory MoS, the problem is with requiring teachers to provide religious guides for their students. The law, as written, was deemed an unconstitutional infringement on the 2nd Amendment.

SWT said: Not to detract from your main points, which are excellent, but ...

Wheels said: ... was deemed an unconstitutional infringement on the 2nd Amendment.

Did the kids have to surrender their guns during the moment of silence?

Well, YRC's do have their Creation Museum. Recently the 10 year old girl was viewing a Creation Museum animitron on children playing with dinosaurs, one had a saddle, that was fun, really neat.

in the next display the guide told her that there was no death until the fall of Adam & Eve. So no animal ate meat, T-Rex ate coconuts. so the 10 yr old girl asked again, "you mean there was no death of any creature till after the fall?", "Yes my dear that's true".

The little girl said "Adam & Eve had no children till after the fall?", "Yes my dear", was the answer again. "Then why do you show children playing with Dinosaurs and not being eaten"

They changed the subject and went to another display. That's a Christian for you, lie to the kids to save their souls!

So 800 Texans alone have signed the list defending science. Gosh, the DI has some 600 people worldwide who've signed their anti-evolution statement (only 4 of them failed to update the list 'cause their dead). Someone had looked over the DI list & analyzed who signed. Can I get a reference for that? It looks like the DI is trying to update their list so it looks more plausible.

FL said: One of the biology textbooks currently used in my hometown school district, for example, introduces students to the "RNA World" hypothesis but does NOT mention any of the problems with it.

Saw a neat picture, you will love it, it's a true story
http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm69/dethspud/album%20number%20six/duggar.jpg

novparl said: Why does the theory(sic) of evolution have to be protected, like the national churches used to protect their dogmata from debate? (In the UK not just the RCs but the Free Churches were banned from the Anglican universities.) Just answer the simple questions. Like why there are 6,7 billion humans alive today & no evolution. If you have an answer, just tell the children.

Ashok Bhagat said: I think life has been evolving for millions of years. Observable evolution may not be so evident so fast.

DavidK said: So 800 Texans alone have signed the list defending science. Gosh, the DI has some 600 people worldwide who've signed their anti-evolution statement (only 4 of them failed to update the list 'cause their dead). Someone had looked over the DI list & analyzed who signed. Can I get a reference for that? It looks like the DI is trying to update their list so it looks more plausible.

The August 2008 Dissent from Darwin (DfD) list tallies 753 names, with degrees and university affiliations. Of the 753 signers, 52 are not currently practicing in their fields, leaving 701 signers. These signers are tallied in a deceptive fashion. The DfD list is inconsistent in its usage of the institutions associated with the signers. In some cases, the university listed is where they work. In other cases, it is where the signers obtained their degrees. The DfD does not specify which is which, and apparently uses the institution of the greatest academic prestige, rather than the one which best describes what the dissenter does for a living. ... In the most generous grouping of signers with degrees in biology and biology-related fields (e.g., epidemiology, genetics), the DfD list has 172 signers, making up 24.5% of the total list.

Not that I'm a name dropper, but I and 20 or so of my fellow grad students in chemistry had a personal discussion on the Origin of Life with Leslie Orgel at Purdue University in 1974. I want to be specific here. The discussion was very, very technical and brought in elements of biochemistry, organic chemistry, inorganic chemistry and physical chemistry (thermodynamics). We also had a couple of geochemists in the group and a couple of physicists as I recall. There is no way...No Way...that a high school student would have understood one-tenth of that discussion. High school students don't have the background or training to understand the chemistry involved at that level. The most you can do is give a brief overview and move on. However, it is wrong to cast doubt on the scientific work that has been done, and continues to be done, on the subject of the Origin of Life because that work is not complete. Once again, strong science standards will serve our students better than giving time to every crackpot notion that comes along.

FL said: One of the biology textbooks currently used in my hometown school district, for example, introduces students to the "RNA World" hypothesis but does NOT mention any of the problems with it.

Of course, all of these scientists are religious fanatics. Why else would they keep it so faithful that they are right and intelligent design advocates are not. They don't like their faith being questioned just like any other good Muslim.

FL said: One of the biology textbooks currently used in my hometown school district, for example, introduces students to the "RNA World" hypothesis but does NOT mention any of the problems with it.

And what weaknesses, specifically, would be taught? I’m expecting an answer if you bother to respond.

No doubt FL’s primary objection to the “RNA World” hypothesis is that Jesus Christ’s miraculous birth somehow disproves it.

FL said: Problems/weaknesses with the RNA World hypothesis, the Primordial Soup claim, and the Miller-Urey experiment.

There is no way…No Way…that a high school student would have understood one-tenth of that discussion. High school students don’t have the background or training to understand the chemistry involved at that level. The most you can do is give a brief overview and move on.

"One must recognize that, despite considerable progress, the problem of the origin of the RNA world is far from solved." ---"Prebiotic Chemistry and the Origin of the RNA World", 2004, Critical Reviews in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 39:99-123

Personally, I think any high school biology student could understand that one pretty easy.

— FL

FL said:

And what weaknesses, specifically, would be taught? I’m expecting an answer if you bother to respond.

Problems/weaknesses with the RNA World hypothesis, the Primordial Soup claim, and the Miller-Urey experiment. Or do you deny that these three specific items have any weaknesses? ( I don't think you will.)

Tell me Doc.…is it possible for a high school biology student to understand the following Leslie Orgel statement?

— FL

DavidK said: So 800 Texans alone have signed the list defending science. Gosh, the DI has some 600 people worldwide who've signed their anti-evolution statement (only 4 of them failed to update the list 'cause their dead). Someone had looked over the DI list & analyzed who signed. Can I get a reference for that? It looks like the DI is trying to update their list so it looks more plausible.

FL said:

No doubt FL’s primary objection to the “RNA World” hypothesis is that Jesus Christ’s miraculous birth somehow disproves it.

Already mentioned Leslie Orgel on that one, but you probably don't know who he is.

Frank J. said: Students still cover obsolete models of the atom in chemistry class before moving on to the explanation that replaced it, so why not do the same in biology?

FL said: So what’s wrong with supporting science standards that give the biology teacher the legal freedom to openly teach and discuss some of those weaknesses and problems with the biology class, as time allows?

FL wrote:

"The point, however, is to allow every science and biology teacher to decide for themselves and present that information if THEY want to."

The point is that they already have that right. How could anyone possibly stop a teacher from using a peer reviewed scientific journal in the classroom? Of course all of this might be completely lost on a high school student who doesn't even know what RNA is.

As for the RNA World hypothesis, that is exactly the way I teach it. It is a strong hypothesis with lots of good evidence. There isn't usually time to go over all, or even part of the evidence in class, but some of it can at least be mentioned in a college course. In any event, it is not really a fully developed theory yet and it has many areas that require further research. So what? Name one scientific theory that doesn't. This is not a problem for the theory of evolution and has no bearing whatsoever on any discussion of descent with modification. Why muddy the waters with irrelevant issues, unless of course that is your only intent.

The point is that high school students need to be taught the basics of the scientific method and the best evidence that science has discovered so far. In college or graduate school they can get into all of the little details all they want to. Tryng to obscure the basic findings of science in order to confuse high school students is a disgusting tactic that no real teacher is going to fall for. They already have academic freedom, the only question is if they will use it wisely or not.

Someone may be ahead of me on this, but maybe the most effective way of countering the Texas influence on textbooks would be to have a substantial number of qualified biologists review any changes to textbooks that result from trying to conform to Texas standards.

Rather than having 800 scientists condemn Texas, let's see 800 or more scientists commenting on the quality of specific books.

Because the creationist alternative to evolution is not a model at all. A model describes how something works and allows you to make predictions.

— eric

FL said:

And what weaknesses, specifically, would be taught? I’m expecting an answer if you bother to respond.

Problems/weaknesses with the RNA World hypothesis, the Primordial Soup claim, and the Miller-Urey experiment. Or do you deny that these three specific items have any weaknesses? ( I don't think you will.)

Frank J said: First, there is no "the" creationist alternative to evolution, but several mutually contradictory alternatives.

You are entirely correct that none of them explain "hows" or make predictions, but that's the closest analogy I could think of involving real science.

Mike Elzinga said: You still don’t get it.

Mike Elzinga said:

Personally, I think any high school biology student could understand that one pretty easy.

— FL

There are many bright high school students who would place that quote of yours in its proper context and understand that there has been a lot of progress in achieving an understanding of the origins of life; far more than you will ever understand in your entire lifetime. In all the time you have been posting your snarky non-Christian taunts on this site, you have never once made an effort to dig into the science and understand what it really means. All you are capable of doing is quote-mining and playing word games. You still don’t get it; you simply can’t fake knowledge of science in front of people who know. You keep making a complete ass of yourself, as do all of your sectarian evolution-hating cohorts who feel compelled to disrupt the learning of others. Your brand of religion makes people stupid permanently; and you apparently love to wallow in stupidity.

FL said:

There is no way…No Way…that a high school student would have understood one-tenth of that discussion. High school students don’t have the background or training to understand the chemistry involved at that level. The most you can do is give a brief overview and move on.

Tell me Doc....is it possible for a high school biology student to understand the following Leslie Orgel statement?

"One must recognize that, despite considerable progress, the problem of the origin of the RNA world is far from solved." ---"Prebiotic Chemistry and the Origin of the RNA World", 2004, Critical Reviews in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 39:99-123

Personally, I think any high school biology student could understand that one pretty easy. The point, however, is to allow every science and biology teacher to decide for themselves and present that information if THEY want to.

Poor FL. Even if he and his ilk "win" and get creationism taught in place of science (in place of what humans who are willing to use their senses and intellect have been able to learn about how the material world works), they still will die. And they probably won't be going to heaven (even if it should turn out that there is such an entity they do not live their lives in a manner that would make them deserving of salvation, at least according to my reading of the Bible, which, admittedly, is not a literal one). They may eventually "triumph" and change what is taught. But that won't have any effect on reality. I'd pray for them, if I was that sort, but I'm more the sort that thinks we humans should solve our own problems rather than begging some god or gods to poof them away and to favor one group of us over another. I don't see how any of our problems will be solved with FL's level of thinking. So I'll continue to work against the efforts of him and others like him to thwart human knowledge and progress. Our innocent children deserve no less. And if there is a God, I think He expects no less.

FL - good luck to you, mate. You have to wonder - if evolution is true why they have to attack you again & again. Almost as if they knew how many millions of missing links there are (where's the evolution of the flipper to the hand - step by step?). Panda's Thumb is like a Communist Party meeting where they all repeat each other endlessly.

San Nin fai lok - Happy Chinese New Year.

San Nin fai lok - Happy Chinese New Year.

novparl said: Almost as if they knew how many millions of missing links there are (where's the evolution of the flipper to the hand - step by step?).

FL said: [I]s it possible for a high school biology student to understand the following Leslie Orgel statement?

"One must recognize that, despite considerable progress, the problem of the origin of the RNA world is far from solved." ---"Prebiotic Chemistry and the Origin of the RNA World", 2004, Critical Reviews in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 39:99-123

Personally, I think any high school biology student could understand that one pretty easy.

"One must recognize that, despite considerable progress, the problem of the Israeli - Palestinian conflict is far from solved."

As far as "missing links" - creationism/intelligent design is nothing but missing links, always was, and - according to the intentions of the supporters of ID - always will be.

That is, C/ID never has told us anything about what happened, or what didn't happen: what sort of thing is the result of a design event (one or a few adult individuals, an egg of a new "kind" being produced by an adult of an old "kind", a new organ/molecule/function in an already living individual, a whole new collection of individuals of various ages and species, ...).

And "Intelligent Design" tells us even less - nothing about when design events take place (only a few times about 6000 years ago, once a few billion years ago, many times over billions of years, maybe even recently?), who (what sort of being, how many of them?) did it, how (what sort of material was used, what intermediate steps, what laws were followed, if any?), or why (such as what common purposes did the designer(s) have in mind in designing the human body so much like the body of chimps and other apes?).

novparl said: FL - good luck to you, mate. You have to wonder - if evolution is true why they have to attack you again & again.

novparl said: FL - good luck to you, mate. You have to wonder - if evolution is true why they have to attack you again & again.

Panda's Thumb is like a Communist Party meeting where they all repeat each other endlessly.

TomS said: As far as "missing links" - creationism/intelligent design is nothing but missing links, always was, and - according to the intentions of the supporters of ID - always will be. That is, C/ID never has told us anything about what happened, or what didn't happen: what sort of thing is the result of a design event (one or a few adult individuals, an egg of a new "kind" being produced by an adult of an old "kind", a new organ/molecule/function in an already living individual, a whole new collection of individuals of various ages and species, ...). And "Intelligent Design" tells us even less - nothing about when design events take place (only a few times about 6000 years ago, once a few billion years ago, many times over billions of years, maybe even recently?), who (what sort of being, how many of them?) did it, how (what sort of material was used, what intermediate steps, what laws were followed, if any?), or why (such as what common purposes did the designer(s) have in mind in designing the human body so much like the body of chimps and other apes?).

Holy cow, one rarely sees projection on such a monumental scale, novparl.

When the scientific community -- which by the way contains members of all religions and none, and most every country on the planet -- argues within itself, and with everyone else, as it constantly does with peer review and repetition of experiments and re-analysis of findings, the result is more robust, reliable, and less biased information.

FL wants everyone to believe he has the One True Path because... well because he said so.

To be even more clear than the previous posters, novparl, what we are attacking is the lies, obfuscation, and pure bullshit being spread by you, FL, and the DI weasels. If you have facts and evidence, put them on the table or STFU.

Who was it that said the truth shall set you free, again?

FL said: One of the biology textbooks currently used in my hometown school district, for example, introduces students to the "RNA World" hypothesis but does NOT mention any of the problems with it. Doesn't give the student ANY indication of any troubles with it.

FL said: Note for Dan: the biology textbook is Holt Biology, 2004, Johnson and Raven. Page 256,

A raging debate among biologists concerns which organic molecules came first, the nucleic acid RNA or proteins. Scientists are divided into three camps ... All three arguments have their strong points ... these competing hypotheses are diverse and speculative.

Stanton said: Intelligent Design Theory, on the other hand, is "GODDESIGNERDIDIT,"

Dan said: But instead, FL wants to alter the Texas teaching standards in a strange and unfruitful way that places solidly understood principles like evolution on the same level as controversial speculations like the RNA world.

mrg (iml8) said:

novparl said: Almost as if they knew how many millions of missing links there are (where's the evolution of the flipper to the hand - step by step?).

Oh right yes, if we can't trace back every single step Alice took to Bob's house ... then she must have teleported. A typical movie has 162,000 frames. If we only had a thousand still frames selected at random we'd still be able to piece together the plot. Even if we had only a hundred frames we'd be able to get a good idea of what was going on, particularly if we had corroborating context. This is a challenge? Prove you have a brain. Ever see your own brain? You sure it's there? Ever see anyone else's brain? And just because some folks have brains, does that prove anyone else does? We need to be skeptical here! Oh silly, that's right, but at least it's on purpose. Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

Dan said: I was not able to find that specific book. But by (presumably) the same authors, I found Biology, seventh edition, by Peter Raven, George Johnson, Jonathan Losor, and Susan Singer (McGraw Hill, Boston, 2005). Here's what that book said about the "RNA world" (page 66):

A raging debate among biologists concerns which organic molecules came first, the nucleic acid RNA or proteins. Scientists are divided into three camps ... All three arguments have their strong points ... these competing hypotheses are diverse and speculative.

In short, this textbook is the opposite of "does NOT mention any of the problems with it. Doesn't give the student ANY indication of any troubles with it."

Since Cech's discovery, other ribozymal activities have been discovered, and it is clear that RNA plays a vital role in DNA replication, protein synthesis, RNA processing, and other basic biochemistry. Perhaps most or all of the chemistry and genetics of early cells were based on RNA. As exciting as these discoveries have been, there are several questions left unanswered. For one thing, investigators still have not made or found a ribozyme capable of producing other ribozymes. Moreover, it is unclear how such RNA molecules could have evolved into cellular life. Perhaps self-replicating molecules of RNA started to evolve inside cell-like structures similar to microspheres or coacervates. If these RNA molecules were able to alter the phenotype of the cell-life structure that carried them, cellular life could have begun. The self-replicating RNA would have provided the hereditary information that the cell-like structures lack.

novparl said: FL - good luck to you, mate. You have to wonder - if evolution is true why they have to attack you again & again. Almost as if they knew how many millions of missing links there are (where's the evolution of the flipper to the hand - step by step?). Panda's Thumb is like a Communist Party meeting where they all repeat each other endlessly. San Nin fai lok - Happy Chinese New Year.

Then let’s start right there, with the easy stuff. Let’s let those teachers tell both sides of the [scientific hypotheses] when it’s applicable, even in high school.

— FL

novparl said: FL - good luck to you, mate. You have to wonder - if evolution is true why they have to attack you again & again. Almost as if they knew how many millions of missing links there are (where's the evolution of the flipper to the hand - step by step?). Panda's Thumb is like a Communist Party meeting where they all repeat each other endlessly. San Nin fai lok - Happy Chinese New Year.

Panda’s Thumb is like a Communist Party meeting where they all repeat each other endlessly.

novparl said: Panda's Thumb is like a Communist Party meeting where they all repeat each other endlessly.

Robin said: LMAO!! Ooohh...now that was hilarious. Best smart-assed comeback I've read in awhile. I am posting this on my board:

Mike Elzinga said: People have to work hard at being this stupid!

FL, can you provide a pdf or jpg of the page from your edition of Holt that you contend is so dogmatic?

(Dan) I was not able to find that specific book. But by (presumably) the same authors, I found Biology, seventh edition, by Peter Raven, George Johnson, Jonathan Losor, and Susan Singer (McGraw Hill, Boston, 2005).

But instead, FL wants to alter the Texas teaching standards in a strange and unfruitful way that places solidly understood principles like evolution on the same level as controversial speculations like the RNA world.

FL - good luck to you, mate. You have to wonder - if evolution is true why they have to attack you again & again.

FL said:

(Dan) I was not able to find that specific book. But by (presumably) the same authors, I found Biology, seventh edition, by Peter Raven, George Johnson, Jonathan Losor, and Susan Singer (McGraw Hill, Boston, 2005).

Well, that's definitely not the same publisher and definitely not the same textbook as the one I cited, Dan.

novparl: FL - good luck to you, mate. You have to wonder - if evolution is true why they have to attack you again & again.

fnxtr said: ... all of which are OOL questions... not modern evolutionary theory. Another epic fail. Thanks for pointing AGAIN how clueless you are, FL.

FL: Note for Dan: the biology textbook is Holt Biology, 2004, Johnson and Raven. Page 256,

FL: Note for Wheels: there is no “tentative” language in that textbook WRT that topic. No acknowledgment that ANY problems exist with the RNA World hypothesis. The exact answer to your question, “Does it phrase its discussion of the hypothesis with language such as “one idea scientists consider…” or “one possiblity…?” is a flat-out “No.”

I too tried to find FL's source, on the principle of never trusting a quote by a creationist/IDer (I have no other specific reason to trust or distrust FL) but could only find the same source as Dan.

It is interesting that, when asked to provide weaknesses of the theory of evolution, FL could not provide any weaknesses in the theory as such, but merely a few areas in which the details are not all worked out. Not only that, but they all pertain to the origins of life, not to the main thrust of the theory which is the diversification of life once it had arisen. FL, what is a weakness of the theory, as distinct from an area of evolution that has not yet been fully resolved?

Regarding 'Prove you have a brain', the version I've seen before is 'Prove you have a liver' which is just as difficult to answer but is a little less abusive (for use when discussing it with your boss, for example).

Richard Simons said: Regarding 'Prove you have a brain', the version I've seen before is 'Prove you have a liver' which is just as difficult to answer but is a little less abusive (for use when discussing it with your boss, for example).

FL said:

Dan said: But instead, FL wants to alter the Texas teaching standards in a strange and unfruitful way that places solidly understood principles like evolution on the same level as controversial speculations like the RNA world.

You have not documented at all that the proposed improvements to the Texas teaching standards are "strange and unfruitful", whatever that phrase mean[s].

FL said: it's clear that my school district's textbook does NOT contain "tentative language" so to speak

FL said:

And what weaknesses, specifically, would be taught? I’m expecting an answer if you bother to respond.

Problems/weaknesses with the RNA World hypothesis, the Primordial Soup claim, and the Miller-Urey experiment. Or do you deny that these three specific items have any weaknesses? ( I don't think you will.)

Deja moo.

FL, we're just asking to see the a scan of the text which you're claiming is so dogmatic. Shoot, I'll be happy to scan in a copy of the page I entered above, just to show I'm willing to abide by the same standards. (Won't happen tonight, though.)

I don't have access to the Holt 2004 copy from USD501. And if I can't get it, chances are many other readers can't either. So, whaddya say, are you willing to show us some evidence?

You’ve lied in this forum several times before. And despite requests, you’ve not typed in the language that you find so objectionable.

I too tried to find FL’s source

FL: Can you think of any "weaknesses" in the Theory of Evolution that aren't about the Origin of Life that you think should be taught?

FL, we’re just asking to see the a scan of the text which you’re claiming is so dogmatic. Shoot, I’ll be happy to scan in a copy of the page I entered above, just to show I’m willing to abide by the same standards. (Won’t happen tonight, though.)

FL said: it's the stuff they left out that constitutes the problem.

FL said:

You’ve lied in this forum several times before. And despite requests, you’ve not typed in the language that you find so objectionable.

Hey Dan, you've lied in this forum too, several times before. (I have no proof of that accusation, of course.)

Yes, FL, we should teach students stuff that you make up.

By the way, how's the water calculation for Noah's Flood coming?

Fl wrote:

"Like I told Dan, the problem with Holt is NOT the “RNA World Hypothesis” explanation and illustration that they laid out on page 256.…."

Well there you go. A hypothesis is a tentative explanation. Anyone who even knows the definition of the term cannot reasonably suggest that they are claiming that there are no problems with the hypothesis or that every question has been answered. It isn't even presented as a theory. What exactly is your problem? Do you think that it isn't a hypothesis?

Every teacher is already perfectly free to include things that are not in the textbook. If you don't like the textbook don't use it. If you want to present the evidence for every hypothesis go ahead and do so. If you want to point out real scientific areas of inquiry please do so. But don't try to claim that no one knows anything or that all theories are fundamentally flawed just because you don't want to believe them.

FL said: Now back to business: I didn't say I found any of Holt 2004's language WRT the RNA world hypothesis "objectionable". I said that the tentative language that Wheels specified (I'm sure you read it) was NOT there, and I also pointed out that the Holt textbook did not acknowledge ANY problems with the RNA world hypothesis.

What is needed is statewide science standards that enable ALL science teachers in ALL districts to be able to decide what’s best for THEM in terms of providing supplemental information to their own science/biology students to make up for WHATEVER their districts’ canned textbooks leave out or under-inform the students about.

You have to wonder - if evolution is true why they have to attack you again & again.

I have to wonder - if creationism is true, why do they have to attack honest scientists, non-literalist Christians, atheists, agnostics, and just about everyone else who doesn't think exactly like them, again and again?

Remember, Creationism is “GODDIDIT,” and Creationists don’t care crap how or why God DIDIT, and all they care is that God DIDIT 6 to 10,000 years ago, end of story unless you want to be excommunicated. Intelligent Design Theory, on the other hand, is “GODDESIGNERDIDIT,” and Intelligent Design proponents are quick to state that GODDesigner DIDIT in ways that puny mortal researchers will never ever hope to comprehend with their puny mortal brains (and is one of the reasons why Intelligent Design researchers never ever do any research to begin with).

— Stanton

...introduces students to the "RNA World" hypothesis but does NOT mention any of the problems with it. Doesn't give the student ANY indication of any troubles with it.

Frank J said:

Remember, Creationism is “GODDIDIT,” and Creationists don’t care crap how or why God DIDIT, and all they care is that God DIDIT 6 to 10,000 years ago, end of story unless you want to be excommunicated. Intelligent Design Theory, on the other hand, is “GODDESIGNERDIDIT,” and Intelligent Design proponents are quick to state that GODDesigner DIDIT in ways that puny mortal researchers will never ever hope to comprehend with their puny mortal brains (and is one of the reasons why Intelligent Design researchers never ever do any research to begin with).

— Stanton

That’s so close, but unfortunately it lets IDers pull one of their many bait-and-switches. To avoid that, just say that YEC is the former and ID is the latter. “Creationism” as defined by critics – and now the courts - is both and more. But “creationism” as understood by the public is still mostly just YEC, and OEC as long as the Creator is identified, and some ”whats” and “whens” are specified. We must end the “ID is not creationism” – “ID is too creationism” diversion once and for all.

FL said:

I too tried to find FL’s source

Did you go here Richard? http://www.amazon.com/Biology-George-B-Johnson/dp/003066473X/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233020300&sr=1-12 FL

FL, what is a weakness of the theory, as distinct from an area of evolution that has not yet been fully resolved?

James F said: And as a side note, I wish the evolutionary creationists would consider rebranding themselves theistic evolutionists or something similar (creation evolutionists, etc.). I understand that some want to make the distinction for evangelical traditions, but I don't want to lump them in with the actual creation pseudoscience proponents.

Anyone can request a sample from Holt McDougal publishing at 800-479-9799, M-F: 8:30AM - 5PM CST. There is no email address that I can see, which is why I didn't do it. But maybe I missed it: http://holtmcdougal.hmhco.com/hm/contact_us.htm

FL,

Complaining about how a 2004 textbook covered the RNA world hypothesis is not much of a gripe. Its an advanced topic. Its an old textbook. Holt McDougal has published five different biology texbooks since that time, so its entirely possible they fixed the problems you're currently complaining about. You are using the very common creationist straw man tactic of complaining about outdated materials.

And you never answered my earlier question. Does the fact that you are griping about minor, advanced topics presented on one page of a 500+ page book mean that you agree with the coverage of the core topics, such as common descent, natural selection, and speciation? I presume that if you had a complaint about the presentation of a more major evolution topic, you'd make that instead.

Richard Simons said: How about answering my other question:

FL, what is a weakness of the theory, as distinct from an area of evolution that has not yet been fully resolved?

novparl said: FL - good luck to you, mate. You have to wonder - if evolution is true why they have to attack you again & again. Almost as if they knew how many millions of missing links there are (where's the evolution of the flipper to the hand - step by step?). Panda's Thumb is like a Communist Party meeting where they all repeat each other endlessly. San Nin fai lok - Happy Chinese New Year.

Dan said: To all: I have purchased a copy of "Holt Biology" by by George B. Johnson and Peter H. Raven, 2004 edition. When it arrives, I'll type in its treatment of the RNA world hypothesis. That way, you'll be able to judge for yourself FL's claim that the book

...introduces students to the "RNA World" hypothesis but does NOT mention any of the problems with it. Doesn't give the student ANY indication of any troubles with it.

So, meanwhile, don't purchase a copy yourself. (I grabbed the cheapest used copy I could find, and the next cheapest is three times as much, so save your money!)

That’s so close, but unfortunately it lets IDers pull one of their many bait-and-switches. To avoid that, just say that YEC is the former and ID is the latter. “Creationism” as defined by critics – and now the courts - is both and more. But “creationism” as understood by the public is still mostly just YEC, and OEC as long as the Creator is identified, and some ”whats” and “whens” are specified. We must end the “ID is not creationism” – “ID is too creationism” diversion once and for all.

FL said: One of the biology textbooks currently used in my hometown school district, for example, introduces students to the "RNA World" hypothesis but does NOT mention any of the problems with it. Doesn't give the student ANY indication of any troubles with it.

Because researchers do not yet understand how DNA, RNA, and hereditary mechanisms first developed, how life might have originated naturally and spontaneously remains a subject of intense interest, research, and discussion among scientists."

Doesn't give the student ANY indication of any troubles with it.

Cheryl Shepherd-Adams said: Dan, if you can't cancel your book order, don't sweat it . . . give it a few years, and FL is sure to refer back to the text.

Thank you for the page scans, Cheryl!

It's no wonder that FL found it impossible to quote a statement from the book claiming that the RNA world hypothesis is definitive... it contains no such statement.

I want to note also the question for assignment on page 257:

"Must one model of the origin of life's chemicals exclude the possibility of another model?"

Now we just wait for novparl to chime in and claim, poor FL, stick to your guns, the fact that they went to all the trouble of scanning the textbook page is a sure sign you must be on to something.

FL, stick to your guns, the fact they swear at you so much shows how unscientific they are. Wonder if they ever visit climate change denial blogs and get so upset? But no doubt climate change is all the fault of a few (by their own admission) creationists. They're like Fidel. He got only 98% of the vote at the last election. Worrying about the 2% made him so angry he got very sick.

Cheryl Shepherd-Adams said: ... These entire two pages make it extremely clear that the jury is still out on the origin of life. These pages are practically screaming "we don't know yet!"

novparl said: FL, stick to your guns, the fact they swear at you so much shows how unscientific they are.

FL, stick to your guns, the fact they swear at you so much shows how unscientific they are. Wonder if they ever visit climate change denial blogs and get so upset? But no doubt climate change is all the fault of a few (by their own admission) creationists. They’re like Fidel. He got only 98% of the vote at the last election. Worrying about the 2% made him so angry he got very sick.

First novparl repeats a bunch of "objections" to evolution that have already been debunked for years, if not decades. Now he's down to spewing non-sequiturs virtually at random. (No mention of hedgehogs, crop-circles, or the price of tea in Baghdad? C'mon, at least spice it up a little.) The denialists really are getting stupider, and apparently more uneducable as well.

Yeah, FL, what he said -- stick to your young-Earth cretinism, and the evidence-faking deceiver-God you need to make it work. When reality gets too painful, subjectivism is the answer.

Raging Bee said: ... When reality gets too painful, subjectivism is the answer.

Once the mechanism of heredity developed, life as we know it began.

Once the mechanism of heredity developed, life could've evolved. But it didn't. Instead, some billions of years later there was this Garden...

Thanks, Cheryl.

That passage is similar to what they have in their college biology text, which is entirely what I expected. Interesting that one of their questions is to contrast two scientific models that explain the origin of life. I though FL said they only mentioned one.

FL: Tell me, when you wrote 'One of the biology textbooks currently used in my hometown school district, for example, introduces students to the “RNA World” hypothesis but does NOT mention any of the problems with it. Doesn’t give the student ANY indication of any troubles with it.' what was going through your mind? After people have repeatedly said that creationists are not to be trusted and are liars, did you honestly think that no-one would check up on your claim?

Did you think 'Well, it sounds close enough to what a text might say'? Did you tell yourself 'I'm not really lying because I am trying to spread the Truth'? I'm genuinely curious about what was going through your noggin when you wrote that.

novparl said: FL, stick to your guns, the fact they swear at you so much shows how unscientific they are. Wonder if they ever visit climate change denial blogs and get so upset? But no doubt climate change is all the fault of a few (by their own admission) creationists. They're like Fidel. He got only 98% of the vote at the last election. Worrying about the 2% made him so angry he got very sick.

novparl said: FL, stick to your guns, the fact they swear at you so much shows how unscientific they are.

Stanton said:

FL said:

No doubt FL’s primary objection to the “RNA World” hypothesis is that Jesus Christ’s miraculous birth somehow disproves it.

Already mentioned Leslie Orgel on that one, but you probably don't know who he is.

I know who he is, but, given your propensity to name-drop and your inability to do anything but proselytize and engage in useless, catty gossip, Leslie Orgel's opinions do not reflect your primary objection to the "RNA World" hypothesis. That, and we all know what your alternative would be to teach (i.e., a literal reading of the King James' Translation of the Book of Genesis)

Their literal “interpretation” is from a revised version of a revised version of a revised translation of a copy of a copy of a copy...

novparl said: FL, stick to your guns, the fact they swear at you so much shows how unscientific they are. Wonder if they ever visit climate change denial blogs and get so upset? But no doubt climate change is all the fault of a few (by their own admission) creationists. They're like Fidel. He got only 98% of the vote at the last election. Worrying about the 2% made him so angry he got very sick.

Dan said: Poe. No one's this stupid.

eric said:

Dan said: Poe. No one's this stupid.

Novparl made another science-as-communist-dictatorship reference yesterday afternoon. So evidently he finds the comparison compelling. Like most ad hominems, it says more about what the speaker fears than what the victim is.

Thanks for the footwork, folks.

Seems FL was dead wrong about the textbook he cited. So insistent, so cocksure, so completely at odds with the reality. It turns out everything he said was completely the opposite of true. Color me unsurprised.

Any other problems with the text you'd like us to check for you, FL? How about telling us what kind of weaknesses you'd like teachers to be able to address?

Dan replied to comment from Cheryl Shepherd-Adams | January 27, 2009 11:34 AM I want to note also the question for assignment on page 257: “Must one model of the origin of life’s chemicals exclude the possibility of another model?”

"meritocratic democratic" is unfortunately an oxymoron.

Henry J said: Seems to me that if the models are RNA first, some other polymer first, or metabolism first, then the metabolism first model also contains the question of which polymer got used first for heredity.

I suppose there's also a possibility that two (or more?) of the models might have appeared on different parts of the planet, initially independent of each other.

Dan said:

FL said:

You’ve lied in this forum several times before. And despite requests, you’ve not typed in the language that you find so objectionable.

Hey Dan, you've lied in this forum too, several times before. (I have no proof of that accusation, of course.)

Of course you don't, because I've never lied in this forum.

"Liar" is such a harsh word. One must consider the reality that there are people who have such a weak grasp of specifics that they can say pretty much anything -- not
merely contradictions of reality, but contradictions from one statement to the next -- while remaining absolutely
oblivious to any discrepancy.

This should not be thought of as a sympathetic remark, however. If was forced to choose between being an outright liar, and not being able to tell hot from cold nor day from night -- I'd take "liar" without thinking about it.

Cheers -- MrG / http://gvgpd.proboards.com

Well, well, well, FL's been caught out in a barefaced, flat-out lie. Not a mistake. Not a misstatement. Not a misrepresentation. Not a prevarication. Not a mischaracterisation. Not something that might be caused be simple incompetence. A brazen, knowing falsehood calculated to deceive. A lie. He is a liar.

And this is just fine with novparl. Funny how the man they call their Saviour had a somewhat different attitude to lies and liars. Look at John 8:44 to see who he thought inspired lies - lies like FL's. Novparl, how does it feel to be on the side of the Father of Lies?

Let me guess: no different to always.

As I was perusing the most recent comments, it occurred to me that something seemed familiar about FL's contributions ... here's why ...

Speaking of deceit, I've recently visited the wonderful and informative 'uncommondescent' site. There a repeat poster bornagain77 leaves various leavings; I had to speak to him. I couldn't; couldn't post for unknown reasons, though I tried several times and was tossed several times. I merely wanted to ask the venerable 'born' this:

"From your moniker am I to infer that you are 'born again' in Christ, and that the year of your epiphany was 1977? Further, if this is so, and it seems likely, will you honestly, in the future, refrain from mentioning an unspecified 'designer', and in all forthcoming postings refrain from lying to us, and worse to yourself, and state what you mean; that the 'designer' is the risen Lord Jesus and that you're posting on a Christian apologetics site? Further, can you also inform the marvellous and whimsical Dr Dembski to do likewise? Afterall a man who takes his son to a Christian faith healer would appear to also believe that the 'designer' was God's Eldest."
Rob.

Well even that source demonstrates that it is called a hypothesis and the text definately states that RNA could "perhaps" have been the first replicating molecule. All of the tentative language that FL claimed was missing is actually there, as it is in the college version of the textbook as well:

"It now seems at least possible that RNA may have evolved first and catalyzed the formation of the first proteins."

Raven and Johnson, Biology - Sixth and Seventh editions (p. 151)

Once again, scientists accurately portray science. Once again, all creationists can do is lie about what the scientists say. No alternative hypothesis, no research, just quote mining and misrepresentation. That alone should be enough to tell you which approach is preferable.

If he doesn't like the textbooks, I suggest that FL should home school his children, he has that right in this country. However, he should get someone else to teach them ethics and morality. Of course, he also has the right to remain silent. Let's hope he uses it more often.

mrg (iml8) said: "Liar" is such a harsh word. One must consider the reality that there are people who have such a weak grasp of specifics that they can say pretty much anything -- not merely contradictions of reality, but contradictions from one statement to the next -- while remaining absolutely oblivious to any discrepancy.

SWT said: As I was perusing the most recent comments, it occurred to me that something seemed familiar about FL's contributions ... here's why ...

The hallmark of a philistine; don’t know, don’t wanna know, and proud of it.

Oh, and sorry, I don't mean to give the impression that I resile from my description of FL's behaviour. He is, as Mike says, a philistine and invincibly ignorant, but his description of the passage in the textbook cannot be passed off as merely ignorant or philistine. It was a plain lie.

Even if FL had never lied in this forum either, it’s clear to me that he has blasphemed here a great many times. Claiming that a book written piece by piece thousands of years ago and edited and translated by many human hands is communication from the creator of the universe is blasphemy.

— Dale Husband

Mike Elzinga said:

SWT said: As I was perusing the most recent comments, it occurred to me that something seemed familiar about FL's contributions ... here's why ...

This has been FL’s shtick all along. He always goes to the creationist websites and grabs material without any comprehension of what he is getting. And it’s so obvious when he does this.

Mike Elzinga said: If one does have such a weak grasp of the issues, one should be more circumspect in one’s pronouncements. If one knows he is ignorant, yet attempts to pull off an authoritative sounding bluff, one is dishonest (a liar).

If one is not even aware of one’s own ignorance, yet babbles authoritative sounding gibberish anyway, one is just plain stupid.

mrg (iml8) said:

James F said: And as a side note, I wish the evolutionary creationists would consider rebranding themselves theistic evolutionists or something similar (creation evolutionists, etc.). I understand that some want to make the distinction for evangelical traditions, but I don't want to lump them in with the actual creation pseudoscience proponents.

I think that Denis Lamoureux uses the concept to make evolution more palatable to evangelicals. Yes, it's a contraption, but I have to say I get great satisfaction in seeing an insider who knows the mindset and the language confound his Darwin-bashing brethren in a way that no doubt reduces them to a state of extreme frustration. Cheers -- MrG / http://gvgpd.proboards.com

Cheryl Shepherd-Adams said:

FL said: One of the biology textbooks currently used in my hometown school district, for example, introduces students to the "RNA World" hypothesis but does NOT mention any of the problems with it. Doesn't give the student ANY indication of any troubles with it.

Images of the pages referred to by FL: p. 256 p. 257

James F said: Oh, I concur. Have you watched the NOVA Evolution series? In the "What about God?" segment, Keith B. Miller presents a paleontology lecture to some Wheaton students, and you can just see how relieved these kids are that a fellow evangelical is explaining evolution and deep time. I will have to invite Lamoureux to be a Clergy Letter Project advisor, he'd be another valuable ally.

Frank J said: Looking at the other comments I want to say first that I rarely use the L-word on Biblical creationists like FL because I think that they are merely telling themselves, and/or others, fairy tales that they honestly feel are necessary to "save mankind."

Thus anti-evolutionists with such radically diverse opinions of the history of life and the role of the Bible try to cover up their irreconcilable differences and offer each other reluctant support under that big tent. I would guess that God dislikes that as much as He dislikes lying and blasphemy.

While I don't find credible FL's claim that he can't get his own copy of the 2004 text scanned ...

Jon Fleming said:

While I don't find credible FL's claim that he can't get his own copy of the 2004 text scanned ...

He, or some friend, has a digital camera. He could take a freakin' picture.

SWT said: As I was perusing the most recent comments, it occurred to me that something seemed familiar about FL's contributions ... here's why ...

Cheryl Shepherd-Adams said:These pages may be from the 2001 edition of the text, not the 2004. I’ll check further...

So are their arguments against Evolution merely allegorical?

— Kevin B

I’m not entirely sure why, but this has put in mind of the Tower of Babel. Perhaps we can hope that He becomes angered of their arrogance and scatters them.….

— Kevin B

And I had to think: On the contrary, a fool has all the answers. Preschool children like to babble away in a free-running fashion and conversations with them can be rather strange. Some folks don’t outgrow this, and it becomes less endearing as they grow older.

— mrg(iml8)

Mike Elzinga said: Nevertheless, they constantly moralize and meddle in the business of others.

Mike Elzinga said: They keep avoiding reality, and we have to keep reminding them of it.

mrg (iml8) said:

Mike Elzinga said: They keep avoiding reality, and we have to keep reminding them of it.

Yes, but the reminders don't necessarily do a lot of good: "Maybe we should do something about that hump." "Hump? What hump?" Cheers -- MrG / http://gvgpd.proboards.com

Seems FL was dead wrong about the textbook he cited. So insistent, so cocksure, so completely at odds with the reality. It turns out everything he said was completely the opposite of true.

there is no “tentative” language in that textbook WRT that topic (RNA World)

The exact answer to your question, “Does it phrase its discussion of the hypothesis with language such as “one idea scientists consider…” or “one possiblity…?” is a flat-out “No.”

One of the biology textbooks currently used in my hometown school district, for example, introduces students to the “RNA World” hypothesis but does NOT mention any of the problems with it.

give it a few years, and FL is sure to refer back to the text.

These entire two pages make it extremely clear that the jury is still out on the origin of life. These pages are practically screaming “we don’t know yet!”

Of course you don’t, because I’ve never lied in this forum.

FL, stick to your guns

FL said: Now that I'm back ...

So then, FL, what sort of “weaknesses” of evolution would you teach?

Stephen J. Gould, perhaps the most famous paleontologist of the 20th century, wrote: The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches … in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed.

7B: Describe the sufficiency or insufficiency of common descent to explain the sudden appearance, stasis and sequential nature of the fossil record.

.…doesn’t work because MY statements–all of them–only dealt with the RNA world hypothesis specifically (with very brief mentions of Primordial Soup and Miller Urey), NOT whether tentative language existed WRT origin of life in general within Holt 2004.

— FL

... this should be good....

FL said:

Seems FL was dead wrong about the textbook he cited. So insistent, so cocksure, so completely at odds with the reality. It turns out everything he said was completely the opposite of true.

Now that I'm back, let's check all that out Wheels. I have a little retracting to do, yeah, but I have something to say in return. Some stuff ("He, or some friend, has a digital camera") is just incorrect period, a failed attempt at playing the psychic. Other stuff, I gotta respond to. Kudos to Cheryl for her scans. Appears to be sorta older version than mine (2004) but wording is definitely close enough or exact enough, so no argument on that. *** The part I need to retract is:

there is no “tentative” language in that textbook WRT that topic (RNA World)

and

The exact answer to your question, “Does it phrase its discussion of the hypothesis with language such as “one idea scientists consider…” or “one possiblity…?” is a flat-out “No.”

I did not read carefully enough, it seems, especially on the back page or so, and so I admit I am mistaken on that part, since I did say the above statements. *** On the other hand....since you have CsAdam's scans in front of you, Wheels, you CAN confirm for yourself that my following statement IS in fact correct:

One of the biology textbooks currently used in my hometown school district, for example, introduces students to the “RNA World” hypothesis but does NOT mention any of the problems with it.

Go back and look at those scanned pages again before you respond, Wheels. None of the actual problems associated with the RNA World are actually mentioned in Holt 2004. Nor are the **magnitude** of the problems indicated. (In contrast, Orgel's article cited earlier, does BOTH imo.) *** Contrast Mrg(iml8)'s January statement "spontaneous synthesis of RNA is difficult" with the scanned pages re the RNA World. You'll see that even a problem *that* easy to state, IS actually left out of the Holt discussion. That's important, because as you saw from the scanned pages, the stated emphasis is "how life might have originated naturally and spontaneously". *** Also Check CsAdam's quote "scientists disagree...." The quote does NOT actually say that scientists disagree with RNA World hypothesis. Indeed, "Most tentatively accept the hypothesis", as she quoted, and you are NEVER told any specific reasons why that apparent minority does not tentatively accept the hypothesis as their majority colleagues do. *** For those reasons, when CsAdams says

give it a few years, and FL is sure to refer back to the text.

...she's mistaken. If I drop the "no tentative language" claim (which I am indeed dropping and retracting), and keep the focus on the fact that actual problems (and the magnitude of the problems) with the RNA World hypothesis are NOT discussed in Holt 2004 Biology, I don't have to wait years (nor even wait till next week) to refer back to the text as an example of why the Texas science standard improvements is the right direction to take for state science standards. It won't convince you guys, but that's okay, it never would anyway and I never look for that. However, the scanned pages will always be part of this thread and I can refer back to them again and again on that one point, **for the lurkers of course.** *** Further, this statement of Cheryl's:

These entire two pages make it extremely clear that the jury is still out on the origin of life. These pages are practically screaming “we don’t know yet!”

....doesn't work because MY statements--all of them--only dealt with the RNA world hypothesis specifically (with very brief mentions of Primordial Soup and Miller Urey), NOT whether tentative language existed WRT origin of life in general within Holt 2004. ***

Of course you don’t, because I’ve never lied in this forum.

And neither have I, Dan. And unlike some of your colleagues here, I don't mindlessly shoot from the lip when it comes to that issue of "lying". Nor am I so weak in mind and spirit that I need phantom's profanity to make a discussion point. But I can be mistaken on occasion. Yet as you can see, not entirely mistaken on this one. I'm smiling. ***

FL, stick to your guns

And so I shall. I truly appreciate your comments Novparl. FL :)

FL said: Contrast Mrg(iml8)'s January statement "spontaneous synthesis of RNA is difficult" with the scanned pages re the RNA World. You'll see that even a problem *that* easy to state, IS actually left out of the Holt discussion. That's important, because as you saw from the scanned pages, the stated emphasis is "how life might have originated naturally and spontaneously".

None of the actual problems associated with the RNA World are actually mentioned in Holt 2004. Nor are the **magnitude** of the problems indicated.

FL said: So what did Texas mandate? The following is to be included in the evolution section of biology textbooks beginning this year. Since Texas is the second largest purchaser of textbooks in the nation what it buys usually becomes what all the other states buy too because mass production makes the Texas selection the least expensive one.

7B: Describe the sufficiency or insufficiency of common descent to explain the sudden appearance, stasis and sequential nature of the fossil record.

This is one small step for honest teaching of evolutionary theory and one giant leap for intelligent design. Dave Scot, Jan 24 2009

You can view the entire document yourself at http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/teks/Sci_TEKS_9-12_Clean_010509.pdf

On the other hand.…since you have CsAdam’s scans in front of you, Wheels, you CAN confirm for yourself that my following statement IS in fact correct: One of the biology textbooks currently used in my hometown school district, for example, introduces students to the “RNA World” hypothesis but does NOT mention any of the problems with it.

Nor does the text mention any strengths of the RNA world hypothesis. It did exactly what was appropriate: teach how scientists generate hypothesis. Nothing more, nothing less.

I’d have to check it more myself, but according to the Jan. 24 Uncommon Descent blog, there’s ALREADY one area of weakness that Texas is going to allow science teachers to discuss and explore WITH their science classes:

— FL

I agree.

Consider the following situation:

You're Tom Cech. You make an observation that an RNA is capable of catalyzing a reaction. You make another observation that RNAs can self-assemble.

Now, what would you THINK given those observations? Go ahead, just THINK.

Now, take FL's point of view: He would wish you just end the inquiry because It-was-Designed.

Which route would you rather choose? THINK or QUIT?

Oh, BTW, Cech chose to THINK. His work went on to win the Nobel.

First of all, I have to commend FL on actually admitting to have made an error. It is something I've very rarely seen in an IDer/creationist even when confronted with blatant evidence. However, it is a pity it took so much effort to force it out. FL, any scientist confronted with major doubt that they are quoting someone correctly will immediately go back to the original to make certain they did not inadvertently misquote. This is something you obviously failed to do.

I see you quote Gould, using one of the favourite quote mines and as your kind always do, failing to point out that he was talking about transitions between species (the kind that cause you guys no difficulty). However, he frequently discussed the many transitional fossils between major groups (that are a headache for IDers/creationists). So you see, he really takes the opposite stance from you.

I am still hoping for you to give one, just one, weakness of the theory of evolution. What weaknesses do you see in the theory itself, in other words the mechanism that resulted in life diversifying, as distinct from specific pathways that are not sufficiently understood for your tastes, or not strongly enough identified as being tentative?

FL said: Btw, Stanton earlier asked:

So then, FL, what sort of “weaknesses” of evolution would you teach?

I'd have to check it more myself, but according to the Jan. 24 Uncommon Descent blog, there's ALREADY one area of weakness that Texas is going to allow science teachers to discuss and explore WITH their science classes:

Stephen J. Gould, perhaps the most famous paleontologist of the 20th century, wrote: The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches … in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed.

Lest I be accused of quote mining you can find Gould discussing it in more detail in Gould’s book The Richness of Life, pages 263 and 264, found in its entirety on Google Books. So what did Texas mandate? The following is to be included in the evolution section of biology textbooks beginning this year. Since Texas is the second largest purchaser of textbooks in the nation what it buys usually becomes what all the other states buy too because mass production makes the Texas selection the least expensive one.

7B: Describe the sufficiency or insufficiency of common descent to explain the sudden appearance, stasis and sequential nature of the fossil record.

This is one small step for honest teaching of evolutionary theory and one giant leap for intelligent design. Dave Scot, Jan 24 2009 FL :)

Do you want to plunge highschoolers in over their heads with organic chemistry for RNA World’s “weaknesses”?

FL said: Btw, Stanton earlier asked:

So then, FL, what sort of “weaknesses” of evolution would you teach?

I'd have to check it more myself, but according to the Jan. 24 Uncommon Descent blog, there's ALREADY one area of weakness that Texas is going to allow science teachers to discuss and explore WITH their science classes:

Stephen J. Gould, perhaps the most famous paleontologist of the 20th century, wrote: The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches … in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed.

Lest I be accused of quote mining you can find Gould discussing it in more detail in Gould’s book The Richness of Life, pages 263 and 264, found in its entirety on Google Books. So what did Texas mandate? The following is to be included in the evolution section of biology textbooks beginning this year. Since Texas is the second largest purchaser of textbooks in the nation what it buys usually becomes what all the other states buy too because mass production makes the Texas selection the least expensive one.

7B: Describe the sufficiency or insufficiency of common descent to explain the sudden appearance, stasis and sequential nature of the fossil record.

This is one small step for honest teaching of evolutionary theory and one giant leap for intelligent design. Dave Scot, Jan 24 2009 FL :)

FL said: Hey Granddaughter, here's my response to you. That you can call names and rant a little bit, I'm convinced of that. But that ability doesn't impress me. What might make me take you seriously, is if you could and would refute the following item that I mentioned to Wheels. (You've seen it already because you quoted it, but for some reason you were unable or unwilling to engage it. Here's your chance.)

On the other hand.…since you have CsAdam’s scans in front of you, Wheels, you CAN confirm for yourself that my following statement IS in fact correct: One of the biology textbooks currently used in my hometown school district, for example, introduces students to the “RNA World” hypothesis but does NOT mention any of the problems with it.

Go back and look at those scanned pages again before you respond, Wheels. None of the actual problems associated with the RNA World are actually mentioned in Holt 2004. Nor are the **magnitude** of the problems indicated. (In contrast, Orgel’s article cited earlier, does BOTH imo.) FL

FL said: I did not read carefully enough, it seems, ...

FL, kudos for admitting you were wrong. I'm disappointed that you did so only after being faced with the actual images from the pages.

2.) You can preach whatever pseudo-science you want within your own church.

— Mike Elzinga

Rilke's Granddaughter said (to FL the creationist troll): In other words, and let's be very clear her, there are precisely TWO possibilities. 1. You plain outright, lied. 2. You're too stupid to be able to read a basic high school biology book. which is it? How should we treat you? Irremediably stupid? Or a flat-out liar?

Dave Lovell said:

FL said: Contrast Mrg(iml8)'s January statement "spontaneous synthesis of RNA is difficult" with the scanned pages re the RNA World. You'll see that even a problem *that* easy to state, IS actually left out of the Holt discussion. That's important, because as you saw from the scanned pages, the stated emphasis is "how life might have originated naturally and spontaneously".

So is your objection to this science text book is that it is, well, er.. a science text book? If it discussed how life might have originated supernaturally and by divine intervention it would be a religious text.

Richard Simons said: FL, any scientist confronted with major doubt that they are quoting someone correctly will immediately go back to the original to make certain they did not inadvertently misquote. This is something you obviously failed to do.

FL said: Some stuff ("He, or some friend, has a digital camera") is just incorrect period, a failed attempt at playing the psychic. Other stuff, I gotta respond to.

Larry_boy said: That is simply un-possible unless you have no friends and live in a third world nation.

eric said: There is at least circumstantial evidence that he was repeating a secondary source and never actually had the book.

eric said:

Richard Simons said: FL, any scientist confronted with major doubt that they are quoting someone correctly will immediately go back to the original to make certain they did not inadvertently misquote. This is something you obviously failed to do.

There is at least circumstantial evidence that he was repeating a secondary source and never actually had the book.

FL said:

FL, can you provide a pdf or jpg of the page from your edition of Holt that you contend is so dogmatic?

No I can't, but I do keep the material with me as always. (And of course you are free to order Holt 2004 from Amazon.com on your own, or to check with your local school biology teachers or local school district. That's what I did originally.

Frank J said: Resume editing

2.) You can preach whatever pseudo-science you want within your own church.

— Mike Elzinga

Meaning that the Constitution allows it. But ironically the church itself might not allow it. AIUI, churches teach "what happened when" stories (e.g. Genesis) that don't match the evidence, but then admit (to adults if not children who can't understand it yet) that the stories are to be taken allegorically, not literally. But note how the pseudo-science peddlers increasingly avoid specific testable "what happened when" stories and concentrate on misrepresenting evolution. I doubt that many churches (& Sunday Schools, etc.) spend much if any time on that. In my Catholic grade school (42-50 years ago) I occasionally heard a Paley-esque "look at it, it must be designed!" argument (something bothered me about it even then - if only I had known the word "unfalsifiable"). But not once did any teacher say that evolution had problems.

But not once did any teacher say that evolution had problems.

Frank,

I forgot to mention that I also know biology teachers and their principals who are still being browbeaten by fundamentalists wanting evolution soft-peddled. That indicates that there is anti-evolution agitation going in on some of the local churches.

Also, one of our former local state legislators was a frequent sponsor or co-sponsor of ID/Creationist legislation. Fortunately term limitations have taken him out of the legislature.

Then there are the wealthy business families who are active in politics and who push for anti-evolution, anti-sex education, and all the other far right agenda items in the schools.

And we still get blitzes of anti-evolution and ID/Creationist crap in local letters to the editor.

So we know it is still going on in the churches.

There's a certain Zen endorsement of evo
science hidden within the "incoming" sniping here: if folks had anything serious to complain about, they wouldn't be spending so much ammunition on nitpicking. "This is the best you've got?"

Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

Henry J said:

But not once did any teacher say that evolution had problems.

I have to wonder what "have problems" would even mean in that context. Does it have unanswered questions about details? Yep - that's a large part of what keeps biologists employed. Does it have conflicts with verified evidence? Nope - if that were the case, scientists as a group would be among the first to revise or abandon it; they wouldn't wait for a political movement to point out the "problems". Henry

FL own a science book? HA HA HA! I find that awfully hard to believe!

</peanut gallery>

I forgot to mention that I also know biology teachers and their principals who are still being browbeaten by fundamentalists wanting evolution soft-peddled. That indicates that there is anti-evolution agitation going in on some of the local churches.

— Mike Elzinga

novparl said: FL, stick to your guns, ...

Dan said: What I find amazing is that FL is sticking to his guns, even after it's been proved that he's shooting blanks.

Dan said:

novparl said: FL, stick to your guns, ...

What I find amazing is that FL is sticking to his guns, even after it's been proved that he's shooting blanks.

Stanton said:

Dan said:

novparl said: FL, stick to your guns, ...

What I find amazing is that FL is sticking to his guns, even after it's been proved that he's shooting blanks.

He doesn't even have a gun, it's just a potato with a sign stuck to it saying "Bang"

FL quoted DaveScot who quoted Stephen Jay Gould:

Stephen J. Gould, perhaps the most famous paleontologist of the 20th century, wrote: The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches … in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed.

Lest I be accused of quote mining you can find Gould discussing it in more detail in Gould’s book The Richness of Life, pages 263 and 264, found in its entirety on Google Books.

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record: The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record will rightly reject my whole theory. Darwin’s argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution directly. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I wish only to point out that it was never “seen” in the rocks. Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution of this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does no require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism that we must reject, not Darwinism. The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed.

Whether the misrepresentations originate in churches or “on the street,” the pressuring of schools to downplay evolution is certainly real. If the ID-based anti-evolution activists were the least bit sincere about having students learn and critically analyze evolution, and about preventing the “expelling” of teachers trying to do their job, the first thing they would object to is the browbeating by fundamentalists. That would have the added bonus of countering charges that ID/”teach the controversy” promotes religion.

— Frank J

Jeremy Mohn said: That is quite an ellipsis!

That is quite a crick creek!

Jeremy Mohn said: That is quite an ellipsis!

On the other hand, there appears to be no question that Ken Ham is in it for the exploitation. Apparently he has found more gullible rubes in the US than he did in Australia.

— Mike Elzinga>

Frank J said: While I think that all anti-evolution activists are for "exploitation first," (and fame if not money, though the money always follows), Ham and AIG seem far more honest about it than the "don't ask, don't tell" Discovery Institute. At least they're willing to criticize ID and OEC, and not sell their souls for the big tent.

Oh, there's fundamentalist crackpots here in Australia, for example, but they're both fewer overall and rarer, I think. There doesn't appear to be enough of them for critical mass, or to support Ken Ham in the style to which he's become accustomed.

The proportions of all religious groups are smaller here. Only about 16% of respondents actually state on the census that they have no religion, but the religious denominations themselves generally agree that a total of less than 20% of the population actually attends religious services for any purpose other than weddings, funerals, or maybe Christmas. Some say as low as 10%.

And there really isn't any "teach the controversy" nonsense here. No religious group that I know of is trying to affect the content of school science courses. If they did, I would strongly predict that the reaction would be incredulous laughter. Local communities have minimal input into the school curriculum, anyway, and the State education departments guard their turf jealously. I suppose there might be whackaloon teachers like Freshwater here and there. They'd have to stay well under the radar, though.

Dave Luckett said: ... If they did, I would strongly predict that the reaction would be incredulous laughter. ...

FL, kudos for admitting you were wrong. I’m disappointed that you did so only after being faced with the actual images from the pages.

On the other hand.…since you have CsAdam’s scans in front of you, Wheels, you CAN confirm for yourself that my following statement IS in fact correct: One of the biology textbooks currently used in my hometown school district, for example, introduces students to the “RNA World” hypothesis but does NOT mention any of the problems with it. Go back and look at those scanned pages again before you respond, Wheels. None of the actual problems associated with the RNA World are actually mentioned in Holt 2004. Nor are the **magnitude** of the problems indicated. (In contrast, Orgel’s article cited earlier, does BOTH imo.) *** Contrast Mrg(iml8)’s January 27 statement “spontaneous synthesis of RNA is difficult” with the scanned pages re the RNA World. You’ll see that even a problem *that* easy to state, IS actually left out of the Holt discussion. That’s important, because as you saw from the scanned pages, the stated emphasis is “how life might have originated naturally and spontaneously”. *** Also check CsAdam’s quote “scientists disagree.…” The quote does NOT actually say that scientists disagree with RNA World hypothesis. Indeed, “Most tentatively accept the hypothesis”, as she quoted, and you are NEVER told any specific reasons why that apparent minority does not tentatively accept the hypothesis as their majority colleagues do.

Oh yeah....the rest of you are welcome to specifically respond as well. If you can.

FL :)

Well, you at least have Philip Bruce Heywood

But then we have some real loonies that could give him a run for his money. Fortunately, with the Bush administration out of the way, there is little chance that Joe will con any government agency out of money for developing his “Energy Machine”.

FL said: Oh yeah....the rest of you are welcome to specifically respond as well. If you can. FL :)

FL said: Oh yeah....the rest of you are welcome to specifically respond as well. If you can. FL :)

So, FL, you're back. Are you now going to give us one weakness of the theory of evolution? So far, all you given us is one example of a textbook that, so you claimed, did not make it clear that there are several possible explanations for the origin of life. Even if your claim had not turned out to be false, in no way does a mistake by one textbook constitute a weakness in the theory of evolution. Even a lack of understanding of particular steps in the evolution of life is not a weakness in the theory. To provide a weakness in the theory, you need to find something that at least hints at a contradiction with the theory.

Richard Simons said: So, FL, you're back. Are you now going to give us one weakness of the theory of evolution? So far, all you given us is one example of a textbook that, so you claimed, did not make it clear that there are several possible explanations for the origin of life. Even if your claim had not turned out to be false, in no way does a mistake by one textbook constitute a weakness in the theory of evolution. Even a lack of understanding of particular steps in the evolution of life is not a weakness in the theory. To provide a weakness in the theory, you need to find something that at least hints at a contradiction with the theory.

Dave Luckett said: Oh, dear, oh dear. Is it a Stirling engine with a scriptwriter, or has he gone the whole hog and invented perpetual motion?

Even if your claim had not turned out to be false

On the other hand.…since you have CsAdam’s scans in front of you, Wheels, you CAN confirm for yourself that my following statement IS in fact correct: One of the biology textbooks currently used in my hometown school district, for example, introduces students to the “RNA World” hypothesis but does NOT mention any of the problems with it. Go back and look at those scanned pages again before you respond, Wheels. None of the actual problems associated with the RNA World are actually mentioned in Holt 2004. Nor are the **magnitude** of the problems indicated. (In contrast, Orgel’s article cited earlier, does BOTH imo.) *** Contrast Mrg(iml8)’s January 27 statement “spontaneous synthesis of RNA is difficult” with the scanned pages re the RNA World. You’ll see that even a problem *that* easy to state, IS actually left out of the Holt discussion. That’s important, because as you saw from the scanned pages, the stated emphasis is “how life might have originated naturally and spontaneously”. *** Also check CsAdam’s quote “scientists disagree.…” The quote does NOT actually say that scientists disagree with RNA World hypothesis. Indeed, “Most tentatively accept the hypothesis”, as she quoted, and you are NEVER told any specific reasons why that apparent minority does not tentatively accept the hypothesis as their majority colleagues do.

The expression 'straining at gnats' comes to mind.

OOL is still a puzzle. No one denies it. So what?

You are still a liar, FL. A bearer of false witness.

Only part of it turned out to be false, Richard. You are reminded that there IS another part which apparently you folks are unable to refute or even discuss. I hope you’re not afraid to admit that this portion is NOT false.

FL said: Only part of it turned out to be false, Richard. You are reminded that there IS another part which apparently you folks are unable to refute or even discuss. I hope you're not afraid to admit that this portion is NOT false.

So FL's complaint is now that a first year textbook does not go into detail about an advanced topic?

fnxtr said: The expression 'straining at gnats' comes to mind. OOL is still a puzzle. No one denies it. So what? You are still a liar, FL. A bearer of false witness.

Because researchers do not yet understand how DNA, RNA, and hereditary mechanisms first developed, how life might have originated naturally and spontaneously remains a subject of intense interest, research, and discussion among scientists.

Goofed that last link, try Don McLeroy.

FL said: Oh yeah....the rest of you are welcome to specifically respond as well. If you can. FL :)

Because researchers do not yet understand how DNA, RNA, and hereditary mechanisms first developed, how life might have originated naturally and spontaneously remains a subject of intense interest, research, and discussion among scientists.

• Two pages or less, total. This is actually more space than Holt et. al had.
• Can't lie through omission or commission.
• This is a textbook, so you need to not confuse students. In particular you can't confuse students about scientific terms, the scientific method, the contents and status of this particular hypothesis, and the status and content of competing hypotheses. In other words, students should know more, not less, after they've read your chapter.

FL said: Only part of it turned out to be false, Richard. You are reminded that there IS another part which apparently you folks are unable to refute or even discuss.

One of the biology textbooks currently used in my hometown school district, for example, introduces students to the “RNA World” hypothesis but does NOT mention any of the problems with it.

GuyeFaux said: "Put your money where your mouth is."

MWN said: (note to FL: I am referring to legitimate scientific theories NOT hoaxes).

phantomreader42 said:

MWN said: (note to FL: I am referring to legitimate scientific theories NOT hoaxes).

FL is incapable of distinguishing between lgeitimate scientific theories and hoaxes. It's like Piltdown Man, found to be a hoax by actual scientists, the creationists didn't even bother looking. Any attempt to study reality is against FL's religion. Making shit up is all he can do.

Do you actually have people coming on to campus and preaching fundamentalist religion in the quad of a chartered University? With adherents trucked in from their conventicles? Good grief. Don't you have to have lawful excuse to be on the grounds of a University, in the US?

I'm pretty sure that if that if it were to happen here, they would be trespassing, and the campus cops would show up within five minutes. (If not, there'd be a riot starting PDQ, students being what they are, but that's a different issue.)

Can these loonies actually do that, in the US? I mean, legally? Or are we talking about some sort of convention that is accepted because doing something to prevent it would be too disruptive?

Dave Luckett said: Do you actually have people coming on to campus and preaching fundamentalist religion in the quad of a chartered University? With adherents trucked in from their conventicles? Good grief. Don't you have to have lawful excuse to be on the grounds of a University, in the US? I'm pretty sure that if that if it were to happen here, they would be trespassing, and the campus cops would show up within five minutes. (If not, there'd be a riot starting PDQ, students being what they are, but that's a different issue.) Can these loonies actually do that, in the US? I mean, legally? Or are we talking about some sort of convention that is accepted because doing something to prevent it would be too disruptive?

Dave Luckett said: Do you actually have people coming on to campus and preaching fundamentalist religion in the quad of a chartered University? With adherents trucked in from their conventicles? Good grief. Don't you have to have lawful excuse to be on the grounds of a University, in the US? I'm pretty sure that if that if it were to happen here, they would be trespassing, and the campus cops would show up within five minutes. (If not, there'd be a riot starting PDQ, students being what they are, but that's a different issue.) Can these loonies actually do that, in the US? I mean, legally? Or are we talking about some sort of convention that is accepted because doing something to prevent it would be too disruptive?

If it is a publicly funded university (most states have several of them), I believe it comes under the “freedom of speech” clause of the US Constitution. Thus, these people can’t be barred. Presumably private universities can bar them, but I don’t know if many of them do.

Dave Luckett said: Do you actually have people coming on to campus and preaching fundamentalist religion in the quad of a chartered University? With adherents trucked in from their conventicles? Good grief. Don’t you have to have lawful excuse to be on the grounds of a University, in the US?

Dave Luckett said: Cripes. I've never seen such a thing on a University campus here, and I've taught at three and been a student at another. ... As for abusive or threatening language, or excessive noise, or taunts provocative of violence, I can't imagine anything happening but a swift trip to the lockup and fronting the beak in the morning. ...

Mike Elzinga said: And I suppose each new generation of students needs to see crack pottery in full bloom in order to get some handle on how to deal with it.

Mike Elzinga said: On the other hand, it’s a mixed bag having these crazies on the quads. When they are out in the open ranting fearlessly, they can be watched; although it gets boring very fast. These characters are all pretty much in the same delusional state. If they were banned, then they simply go into stealth mode...

FL said: One of the biology textbooks currently used in my hometown school district, for example, introduces students to the "RNA World" hypothesis but does NOT mention any of the problems with it. Doesn't give the student ANY indication of any troubles with it.

FL said: Doesn't give the student ANY indication of any troubles with it.

On page 16, Johnson and Raven write: A hypothesis is an explanation that might be true -- a statement that can be tested by additional observations or experimentation.

On page 19, Johnson and Raven write: There is, however, no absolute certainty in a scientific theory. The possibility always remains that future evidence will cause a scientific theory to be revised or rejected. A scientist's acceptance of a theory is always provisional.

The real reason FL wants college-level material introduced into high school classrooms is so that creationist teachers can spew garbage and not have to worry about being challenged by their students - kind of an argument by assumed authority (see how much Teacher knows?)Misdirection can be SO effective as FL proves so often.

The mental gymnastics that Floyd goes through to prop up his fantasies is simply incredible.

I suspect we will see him as a FOX news contributor soon.