Creationism bill filed in Florida

Then what? Then Florida gets its pants sued off, loses badly, and creationists start whining about activist judges joining with Darwinazis to suppress free scientific inquiry.

Can't there just be a set of wind-up dolls that can do all this crap without actual people having to go through the routine and having to spend actual time and money on it?

I don't know the context, so forgive me if this is a naive question but - what exactly would it imply if this law is passed? How does "critical analysis" automatically lead to teaching creationism? On the face of it, it does kind of look dogmatic to fight something like this.

So Pete, What is this? Is it a post election "We got creamed in November, but looky looky looky we got "issues?"

Or is it, "I am such a stupid right-winger moron that I really believe this bullshit?"

MPW said: Can't there just be a set of wind-up dolls that can do all this crap without actual people having to go through the routine and having to spend actual time and money on it?

anonymous coward,

Critical Analysis of Evolution happens every day in science labs around the world.

What this bill is hoping to do is, capitalize on so-called "gaps" of information or physical evidence for the purpose of undermining the Theory of Evolution, thus leaving the door open for only other possible explanation, according to the fundies, God.

As they have no scientific proof that would support their beliefs, the next best thing to do, for them, is to cast doubt on the Theory of Evolution. It allows them get a foot in the door to further their indoctrination.

With the sun scarcely set on Gov Charlie Crist’s joining state and local officials for the grand opening of Scripps Florida state-of-the–art biomedical research facility. Along comes Sen. Steven Wise to create a dichotomy of epic proportions.
With Crist trying to “develop Florida into a biotech hub and a global leader in medical research and development”, Sen. Wise seems just as determined to portray Florida as a
haven for the scientifically challenged. Wise’s anti evolution bill which requires “Critical Analysis” of evolution, amounts to nothing more than a rhetorical shell game appropriated from anti evolution mantras in other states.
After Sen. Rhonda Storms “Academic Freedom “bill died last year, Sen. Wise is merely picking up the Fundamental Religionist banner to rally support amongst those who desire is to force their personal theocratic ideologies into the school science system.
Their underhanded ploy is not to mention religion, just teach enough of their favored arguments against evolution as science (which they are not) then students will make the correct choice in rejecting evolution and accept Wise’s particularly narrow religious view point. In fact Sen. Wise has made clear in public statements, his desire to disingenuously slip intelligent design / creationism into our schools.
Are Florida politicians so naive to think that this bill, should it pass, will not be vigorously challenged and fail, just as so many others have, with great expense to the states involved. Does Gov Crist really expect bio tech companies (whose process are based upon evolutionary concepts) to support a state whose science education is in jeopardy of being seriously compromised?
I hope, think, that this bill is not going to make it.

anonymous coward said: I don't know the context, so forgive me if this is a naive question but - what exactly would it imply if this law is passed? How does "critical analysis" automatically lead to teaching creationism?

On the face of it, it does kind of look dogmatic to fight something like this.

anonymous coward said: I don't know the context, so forgive me if this is a naive question but - what exactly would it imply if this law is passed? How does "critical analysis" automatically lead to teaching creationism?

On the face of it, it does kind of look dogmatic to fight something like this.

The irony, of course, is that there's far more "controversy" and space for critique in the subsequent sections about government than there is about evolution.

After all, If I am a black child, the fact that the fact that the Constitution originally counts me as only three fifths of a human being and it would be OK for someone to keep me as personal property, is, I daresay, a controversy. One that just perhaps, might stick in my craw while we're talking about how it's so "evident" that "All men are created equal" (line 25).

And, unlike evolution, various forms of government, maybe 160 at last count, are currently known to exist. And, unlike natural laws, it is possible to pick and choose among them, ranking them for efficiency and efficacy on a myriad of criteria.

Here is a subject, where there actually are many legitimate shades of gray and matters of personal preference. I, for example, like living in America, because I am an entrepreneur and the ecosystem here works well for me. However, if I had a child with serious medical conditions, I would probably prefer the Canadian system for it's similar structure but better access to healthcare.

But if I were a rich, corrupt general with a large personal army, Zimbabwe might legitimately be my idea of a perfect garden spot.

Alternately, if consistency and security were my prime desires I might prefer the way the Scandinavian countries do it. There are many Americans, retirees for example, who would do better under "Socialism lite" in Sweden, but, oddly, you don't see agitation for discussing that.

No, you hear it about Evolution, a simple law of nature. Evolution can actually be demonstrated, it can actually be measured. There is no evidence for any alternative. And yet on this subject, we have to "teach the controversy".

anonymous wrote:

"I don’t know the context, so forgive me if this is a naive question but - what exactly would it imply if this law is passed? How does “critical analysis” automatically lead to teaching creationism? On the face of it, it does kind of look dogmatic to fight something like this."

That is exactly the trap they want people to fall for. They want to appear to be reasonable while illegally subverting science education. They just aren't being honest about their motivations or intentions.

Real critical analysis is exactly the opposite of what these people want. If that were the goal then everyone already has this freedom. What they are really hoping is that some teachers will use this as an excuse for teaching creationism and as a defense when they get sued for doing so.

If the law passes it won't change a thing. People will still try to preach creationism and they will still get sued for it regardless. It really is a pathetic attempt at lying for Jesus.

Ouch - my irony meter just exploded!

When I closed the browser window I was using to read about how ass-backwards Stephen Wise was about science education in Florida, This...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29430688/

Popped up in the news window underneath it.

Now I'm going to have to spend all afternoon picking irony meter shards out of the ceiling tiles. I'm just glad I wasn't hurt.

stevaroni said: After all, If I am a black child, the fact that the fact that the Constitution originally counts me as only three fifths of a human being and it would be OK for someone to keep me as personal property, is, I daresay, a controversy. One that just perhaps, might stick in my craw while we're talking about how it's so "evident" that "All men are created equal" (line 25).

Under those circumstances I would have not merely backed the measure myself but complained that 3/5ths was giving away too much to the slave states.

The context in which these whackos are popping up is interesting and also useful. Their activities seem to increase around elections, especially when science gets voted back in. It tells us something about the behind-the-scenes discussions and angst going on among them. We see it here in our local letters to the editor also.

But it is also useful because the anti-evolution “alternatives” are now quite well catalogued as pseudo-science. That makes playing Whack-a-Whacko a little bit easier than it was when there was a lot more confusion about what they were pushing.

I’m all for keeping the laser beams focused on these characters permanently. In fact, I wouldn’t mind cranking up the energy output of the laser a few orders of magnitude.

Mike Elzinga said: I’m all for keeping the laser beams focused on these characters permanently. In fact, I wouldn’t mind cranking up the energy output of the laser a few orders of magnitude.

I don’t know the context, so forgive me if this is a naive question but - what exactly would it imply if this law is passed? How does “critical analysis” automatically lead to teaching creationism? On the face of it, it does kind of look dogmatic to fight something like this.

Florida legislators need to be reminded of how certain scientific societies reacted to Lousiana's Science Education [sic] Act--the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology moved their 2011 meeting from New Orleans to Salt Lake City because of Lousiana's anti-evolution legislation. The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology has also called for a boycott of Louisiana (after their 2009 meeting there, which was already under contract) as well as any other state that enacts anti-science legislation. Maybe Florida wasn't serious about attracting biotech firms to the state.

anonymous coward said: I don't know the context, so forgive me if this is a naive question but - what exactly would it imply if this law is passed? How does "critical analysis" automatically lead to teaching creationism? On the face of it, it does kind of look dogmatic to fight something like this.

I don’t know the context,

so forgive me if this is a naive question but - what exactly would it imply if this law is passed?

How does “critical analysis” automatically lead to teaching creationism?

On the face of it, it does kind of look dogmatic to fight something like this.

Update:

I decided the opening post ought to have more explanation of why the bill is automatically regarded as creationist. The opening is now updated. It's really simple though. Creationists are known to use certain words and phrases to mean teach creationism (under one of its aliases). Wise is a know creationist or sympathizer. If he is innocent he need only spell out his intended new science content.

Some comments that had been filtered are now shown.

anonymous coward said: I don't know the context, so forgive me if this is a naive question but - what exactly would it imply if this law is passed? How does "critical analysis" automatically lead to teaching creationism? On the face of it, it does kind of look dogmatic to fight something like this.

stevaroni said: However, if I had a child with serious medical conditions, I would probably prefer the Canadian system for it's similar structure but better access to healthcare.

I prefer the alternate term someone came up with: "academic anarchy". It fits the purpose of these bills much better. The promoters don't have any legitimate controversy to present, they just want to loosen the standards enough that they can slip their own bogus pseudoscience into the curriculum. They're preying on Americans' ingrained sense of fairness to manipulate the system and give their position an air of legitimacy it really doesn't have.

Memenic Bottleneck said: Britian also has social medicine. My daughter’s college roommate is from Scotland. She needed emergency surgery just before Christmas. She was stunned at how clean and professional our healthcare was in comparison to theirs.

stevaroni said: Ouch - my irony meter just exploded! When I closed the browser window I was using to read about how ass-backwards Stephen Wise was about science education in Florida, This... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29430688/ Popped up in the news window underneath it.

Altair IV said: I prefer the alternate term someone came up with: "academic anarchy".

mrg said: "We are introducing a bill to support critical analysis of traffic regulations. People need to have the freedom to determine which side of the street they prefer to drive on, and whether it is really necessary to obey stop signals or speed limits."

anonymous coward said: I don't know the context, so forgive me if this is a naive question but - what exactly would it imply if this law is passed? How does "critical analysis" automatically lead to teaching creationism? On the face of it, it does kind of look dogmatic to fight something like this.

We are introducing a bill to allow for crititcal analysis of crying in baseball. Of course the rules have always allowed crying, that is not the issue. We want students to be able to decide if you should be given runs for crying and if so how many. We definately want to teach both sides of this countroversy and let the students decide for themselves.

Pete Dunkelberg said: Update: I decided the opening post ought to have more explanation of why the bill is automatically regarded as creationist. The opening is now updated. It's really simple though. Creationists are known to use certain words and phrases to mean teach creationism (under one of its aliases). Wise is a know creationist or sympathizer. If he is innocent he need only spell out his intended new science content. Some comments that had been filtered are now shown.

Dan said: The fact that the bill doesn't specify what the critical analysis should be suggests that it's just opening the door for a dogmatic, idiotic Jonathan Wells approach.

When I read the bill, I was struck by the frequent appearance of the phrase, "the full range of scientific views." That strikes me as equivalent to "Scientific Creationism," which I suspect will be argued as valid science. Furthermore, Section 2 says "...students shall not be penalized for subscribing to a particular position or view regarding biological or chemical evolution," which I see as meaning a student can get all the answers on a test wrong yet pass if he remarks that it is his "view" that his answers are correct. The bill does not explain why evolution deserves such special treatment, and not history (spacemen built the pyramids), chemistry (certain chemical reactions occur because the atoms' have pre-arranged (in heaven) marriages), or geology (the D. Parker Farrell theory of mountains floating up into the sky and the continents slipping out from underneath).

My wife’s cousin’s husband is a doctor in Montreal. He says you really don’t want to get sick in Canada. It’s great if you need stiches or some antibiotics, but if you need hip surgery, get in line. It’s about a 2 year wait.

And a nephew in Montreal :)! Almost left him out.

Altair IV said: I prefer the alternate term someone came up with: "academic anarchy". It fits the purpose of these bills much better. The promoters don't have any legitimate controversy to present, they just want to loosen the standards enough that they can slip their own bogus pseudoscience into the curriculum. They're preying on Americans' ingrained sense of fairness to manipulate the system and give their position an air of legitimacy it really doesn't have.

MememicBottleneck said: My wife's cousin's husband is a doctor in Montreal. He says you really don't want to get sick in Canada. It's great if you need stiches or some antibiotics, but if you need hip surgery, get in line. It's about a 2 year wait. Britian also has social medicine. My daughter's college roommate is from Scotland. She needed emergency surgery just before Christmas. She was stunned at how clean and professional our healthcare was in comparison to theirs.

I don't think Wise is a "sucker for the scam," rather I think he's hoping the scam will work.

Wise doesn't give a rat's ass about science education. All he's interested in is scoring some points with the conservative base. He'll be able to strut around and proclaim that he stood up for family values, academic freedom and all that stuff.

Also, he's not accountable for any court action downstream. No, that will be for some hapless school district to bear and bear it they will.

Let's see how many court cases have creationists won? Zero. Yep, a pretty solid trend there.

The front lines, however, will be, as usual, science teachers. Recall in Dover it was the science teachers who held firm and said, "No! As professionals we will not teach creationism." It was the school administration that pushed ahead, undermining the teachers and setting Dover up for the lawsuit.

More likely in Florida will be the Freshwater Approach which is to be sneaky about it, then lie and deny when caught. Either way, it's an unfortunate situation for the students.

This is probably off the wall but I wonder if Stephen Wise is any relation to young earth creationist and Harvard PhD in paleontology Kurt Wise?

Doc Bill said: Let's see how many court cases have creationists won? Zero. Yep, a pretty solid trend there.

(sigh )the war never ends does it ?
(goes to see if armor still fits)

Critical Thinking in High School Science -

I'd like to add to my earlier comment.

Of course, high school science is an excellent place to illustrate appropriate, skeptical, critical thinking - clarification of hypotheses, logical design of experiments, objective collection of data, logical interpretation of data, and so on.

Being given insight into how it was determined that something is the case, not merely told to memorize.

One of the main things that drove me into science as an undergraduate way my iconoclastic and skeptical (but not delusional) nature. In many other fields, professors presented their subjective interpretations of material to be regurgitated. In science, even the most arrogant professor had to discuss the data and reasoning that led to the conclusions they were presenting.

However, language like "a critical analysis of the theory of relativity" or "a critical analysis of the theory of evolution", with reference to the high school curriculum, is ludicrous. Naturally students should be taught what evidence supports such theories, but any implication that a high school science class is the place to attack a major scientific theory is insane.

MPW said: Then what? Then Florida gets its pants sued off, loses badly, and creationists start whining about activist judges joining with Darwinazis to suppress free scientific inquiry.

RBH said:

MPW said: Then what? Then Florida gets its pants sued off, loses badly, and creationists start whining about activist judges joining with Darwinazis to suppress free scientific inquiry.

But Florida won't get its pants sued off. Some little school district in Wakulla County will take the legislation as a green light to teach Hovind's crap, and they'll get their poor asses sued off and that district's kids will pay for it. It's called a "Dover Trap" and it's being set by the legislature.

What's being ignored here is the damage the thinking of this bill does to science education. No, telling high school students that they get to decide what is, and is not, science confuses any chance of teaching them the process of science, and the importance of peer review. Its just bad science instruction.

There is massive confusion, even among educators, of the difference between actual critical analysis exercises in classroom instruction, and brainless paranoid skepticism of an imagined evil elite. Chosing between supposed authorities is not what critical analysis is supposed to be about. High school students, and, sorry, most high school science teachers and politicians, do not have the background and understanding necessary to conclude what the current scientific understanding is. There is an authority in science: the people doing it. High school students and politicians don't get to vote on it.

We also see here massive confusion on what is actually happening on the ground in the propaganda/political war over science education. Most of you have your cause and effects confused. State legislation is almost irrelevant. Louisiana (thank God for the spelling checker) and Kentucky currently have legislation supporting the anti-evolution campaign, but they're symptoms, not the cause. A long time before the legislation was introduced the individual schools and school districts were either "teaching the controversy", or not teaching evolution at all. The courts have no function in this unless someone undertakes the hugely expensive task of suing some school. That hasn't happened in Kentucky for a decade, and probably won't be happening in Louisiana. We might get another Dover somewhere in the next five years, but its not going to change things. We are losing. In neighborhoods were parents are uncomfortable with good biology instruction, that is, where evolution is the conceptual guiding principle, the school is, in most cases, not going to flip them the bird. The anti-science propaganda doesn't need legislation to succeed.

So long as the general public remains confused over the theological implications of biology we will continue to lose. Science has nothing to say about the supernatural, yet a growing number of scientists insist otherwise. You see it here on PT all the time: a false dichotomy between science and religion. There are people involved in opposing the anti-evolution campaign who are much more concerned with promoting the "new atheism" than they are concerned for good science education. So we have two extremes who are dominating the debate, both of whom insist that its all about science vs religion. One will supposedly win only at the cost to the other. But we aren't on the cusp of a new enlightenment. The majority, at least in the US, shows no signs of giving up their religious beliefs for the sake of good science education. As long as an anti-religion agenda is involved in the campaign for good science education we will lose. The courts are not going to change that.

Key people and organizations in the pro-science campaign realize all this. Those that are atheists apparently don't feel that their personal beliefs require the support of a national education system. They are quite comfortable with a science that has nothing to say about the supernatural, and an education policy that is tolerant of religious belief, or lack thereof. Please get behind their efforts. Its not cynical, or stealth atheism. Its putting good science education first.

brightmoon said: (sigh )the war never ends does it ? (goes to see if armor still fits)

Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews said: That's a bit unfair. Our (the UK's - Britain is a geographical concept, not political - National Health Service is hugely expensive but paid in part for by contributions (National Insurance) made by all those in employment; the system in Scotland is under the control of the devolved Scottish government and I don't know how it compares with the English, run directly by Westminster (England lacking its own government, unlike the three other nations of the UK). While the NHS has its problems (top heavy management being perhaps the biggest waste of resources), it is efficient and rumours of its lack of cleanliness are exaggerated by one particular tabloid "newspaper". The perception from this side of the pond is that the USA's system is expensive, with the best care available only to those who can afford it. If I'm wrong, I'm happy to be corrected!

Hmmm...

Stephen Wise=creationist 'tard.

Kurt Wise=creationist 'tard.

Hypothesis: The Giant Sky Pixie, er, Intelligent Designer who handed out names has a developed sense of verbal irony.

However, language like “a critical analysis of the theory of relativity” or “a critical analysis of the theory of evolution”, with reference to the high school curriculum, is ludicrous. Naturally students should be taught what evidence supports such theories, but any implication that a high school science class is the place to attack a major scientific theory is insane.

— harold

Frank J said:

However, language like “a critical analysis of the theory of relativity” or “a critical analysis of the theory of evolution”, with reference to the high school curriculum, is ludicrous. Naturally students should be taught what evidence supports such theories, but any implication that a high school science class is the place to attack a major scientific theory is insane.

— harold

Unfortunately, as you know, most people, including many who accept evolution, just don't know that, and have fallen for the scam that the anti-evolutionists have the "fairer" option. This latest scam, whether called "critical analysis," "strengths and weaknesses" or "academic freedom," exploits the "liberal" attitude that most people have about education. Even more maddening is its added bonus of "atheist baiting." Most of the criticism comes in the form of charges of "sneaking in God," instead of patiently demonstrating the counterintuitive fact that "evolution only" is the fairest option.

Yes, our medical system is overpriced. There are several reasons. One is that we are a sue happy country, and lawyers have driven the cost of malpractice insurance through the roof.

Another is that the medical industry uses the US to pay for their developments. You can drive across the northern or southern border and buy the same drugs by the same manufacturer for much less.

“The best care” is a relative term. The girl from Scotland had insurance through the college, and she received “typical care”. Apparently typical here is much better than typical care in Scotland.

The majority of US citizens have health insurance. Either through the company they work for, or they purchase it separately on their own.

Those that cannot afford, or are too irresponsible to purchase insurance, are left to using public clinics, or paying for doctor’s visits out of pocket.

Also, hospital emergency rooms cannot turn anyone away regardless of ability to pay.

MememicBottleneck said: Yes, our medical system is overpriced. There are several reasons. One is that we are a sue happy country, and lawyers have driven the cost of malpractice insurance through the roof. Another is that the medical industry uses the US to pay for their developments. You can drive across the northern or southern border and buy the same drugs by the same manufacturer for much less.

I’m not quite sure what the problem with “social medicine” countries is.

The bottom line is that if they had an alternative worth teaching, they wouldn’t be running this stupid bait and switch scam, but they would actually have some intelligent design or creation science to teach.

— Ron Okimoto

Elvis is alive. I seen him myself.

Sylvilagus said: More to the point: upwards of 25% of our healthcare expenditures goes to insurance companies to pay for their profit and advertising. Non-profit public systems here and abroad have only a tiny fraction of the overhead costs. Not to mention the added costs to MD's of handling all the paperwork generated by so many private plans. Most MD's that I know feel more pressured by the costs and headaches of running the office paperwork associated with insurance than they are by malpractice. A non-profit, public cooperative, single-payer system would eliminate or drastically reduce these costs.

Bill Buckingham said: Elvis is alive. I seen him myself.

It should be noted that the US medical profession’s “pay per treatment” model is effectively rigged to run up costs, and (admittedly along with liability concerns) gives doctors an incentive to administer very marginal treatments and bill for them.

However, the US system is wretchedly broken, and the ugliest irony is that it is heavily funded by the government via Medicare / Medicaid, without government direction. One could suggest that the government would only produce a bureaucratic nightmare, but unfortunately that’s what the USA has now.

I envision that the private system will endure, but it will be under government direction.

MememicBottleneck said:

stevaroni said: However, if I had a child with serious medical conditions, I would probably prefer the Canadian system for it's similar structure but better access to healthcare.

My wife's cousin's husband is a doctor in Montreal. He says you really don't want to get sick in Canada. It's great if you need stiches or some antibiotics, but if you need hip surgery, get in line. It's about a 2 year wait. Britian also has social medicine. My daughter's college roommate is from Scotland. She needed emergency surgery just before Christmas. She was stunned at how clean and professional our healthcare was in comparison to theirs.

harold said: Look, I get it. An engineer is supposed to be a Republican, and a Republican is supposed to deny that the government can do anything good.

I don't know why creationist morons i.e. Stephen Wise think that just because it is them and not Dover, PA or Ohio that they can get away with something that has already been shot down in the courts. It seems that he thinks he's special *There is no child left behind at work* so his bill will be happily accepted. . . when the country just voted in a liberal president. . . Yeah good luck on that.
Regardless of the bill's passing or failing trust that not all children will be swayed. I speak from my experience in Ohio schools (as a student) during their critical analysis curriculum. I still enjoy as much atheist evolution as I can get no matter what my high school said. Was I mocked being called an atheist monkey girl etc? Sure was but I had classmates that kept their mouths shut and weren't. Kids by that age are going to make thier own decision regardless of what is presented as "critical evidence against evolution" The problem is that half of them are so indoctrinated by christian mythology and rhetoric by their ignoramous parents and evangelical fundamentalist pastors there's no hope for them regardless. Just wait for them to get to college and have a professor openly mock them for believing man was made by an imaginary being from play dough. Then they will either convert. . . or turn into Ted Haggart-- either way a win for evolution.

Sarah said: I don't know why creationist morons i.e. Stephen Wise think that just because it is them and not Dover, PA or Ohio that they can get away with something that has already been shot down in the courts.

eric said: What is moronic, and what happens more often than not, is then publicly talking about how the bill is about bringing God back in schools.

mrg said:

eric said: What is moronic, and what happens more often than not, is then publicly talking about how the bill is about bringing God back in schools.

I'm not sure I'd call it "moronic" but rather "compulsive". Hardcore Bible-oriented Darwin-bashers will go along with "don't ask don't tell" to push a court case but they don't LIKE it at all. Their ideology is what's propelling them down this road and they find it difficult or impossible to be consistent in concealing it. All the more so because the public debate outside of those directly involved in the effort will include a lot of people carrying signs and writing letters to the editor that DO ask and DO tell without thinking twice about. When a lot of other folks are barking, it gets that much harder to keep from barking one's own self. Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

If the anti-science crowd want to discuss "controversy" in evolutionary science, I say let's do it.

An fine text would be "The Mistaken Extinction: Dinosaur Evolution and the Origin of Birds" by Lowell Dingus & Timothy Rowe. (Sadly this is out of print at present.)

The book is an excellent example of how science works & how it handles controversies. It was written as an undergraduate paleontology textbook a little over a decade ago.

It contains two main sections. First concerns the K-T mass extinctions. Second concerns the evolutionary ancestry of birds.

My fantasy would be to have an updated version, with newly discovered material added into the text in a way to explicitly show how new discoveries are incorporated into previous science knowledge.

Let's also have Physics classes "teach the controversy" about the Second Law of Thermodynamics & its relationship to both Evolution (1) and Religion (2)

(1) Topics such as why Evolutionary Theory doesn't conflict with the 2nd Law & the difference between a closed system and an open system.

(2) Topics such as why objects such as a Soul or God are precluded by the 2nd Law.

But I don't think this is quite what the bible-thumpers mean when they talk about teaching "scientific controversy".

You don’t get it. I am an engineer. I am not a Republican. The government should not do things the private sector can do as well.

The private sector is doing a lousy job and so the government, unfortunately, is forced to step in. And given the fact that the taxpayer / government is footing about half the bill – from the stats I’ve heard – the lack of oversight is flatly ridiculous. UK NHS is not utopia, it has plenty of problems, but overall they’ve got a system that works imperfectly as compared to a system that works very badly.

And if you’re saying the US medical practice itself is blameless in the matter – I would think that’s exaggerating your position – my personal experiences with them range from “admirable” to “call in an airstrike on them”. There are private practitioners who may be good doctors but as small businessmen they are sloppy to the point of near-criminal. “The only thing worse than a big stupid bureaucracy is a little stupid bureaucracy.”

My last experience with the system was a pure waste of time and a ripoff, with the respect I was given only somewhat above that provided by airport security, and now I fear having to deal with them. The medical services I got in the Army were far better in all respects.

And PLEASE – I know lots of engineers and they are just as likely to be liberal as conservative. Somehow I suspect you may have been influenced by the Darwin-bashers with engineering degrees.

That's the creationists who often aren't real engineers...hope that was clear.

harold said: By the way, I enjoy your comments and I didn't mean to seem like I was coming down like a ton of bricks.

I entirely agree with this as well. I see the Canadian model as even better than the UK model.

Unfortunately, I'm sure this was true, and I'm sure I know of far worse cases. [...] I regret that the US medical system treated you in an obnoxious way, and I WANT to change it for the better going forward.

Especially since many of them aren't even real engineers.

Bill Buckingham said: Elvis is alive. I seen him myself.

mrg said:

eric said: What is moronic, and what happens more often than not, is then publicly talking about how the bill is about bringing God back in schools.

I'm not sure I'd call it "moronic" but rather "compulsive". Hardcore Bible-oriented Darwin-bashers will go along with "don't ask don't tell" to push a court case but they don't LIKE it at all.

Of course, it is physically possible that Elvis could have faked his death, and is still alive.

That claim is actually far less absurd than denial of evolution.

Ravilyn Sanders said: But they don't care. What they want is vote, if the vote is bundled with a loss in the courts and huge bill to some school district, they don't care. Or they actually see it as a benefit. More talking points, more opportunities to feign outrage and more campaign issues.

eric said:

Sarah said: I don't know why creationist morons i.e. Stephen Wise think that just because it is them and not Dover, PA or Ohio that they can get away with something that has already been shot down in the courts.

They are probably operating under the assumption that the Florida state courts or the federal circuit courts, or even SCOTUS will not follow Dover's precedent - none of those courts are required to. They may be right, though I think this is a bad assumption to make about the Federal courts and SCOTUS. Assuming a very conservative court will side with you is probably not moronic. It may be an unwarranted assumption, but its not completely out of the realm of possibility. What is moronic, and what happens more often than not, is then publicly talking about how the bill is about bringing God back in schools. Because very few courts of any political bent are going to be willing to ignore such overtly religious speech. Its like the creationist movement is not content until they have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

Sarah said: I speak from my experience in Ohio schools (as a student) during their critical analysis curriculum. I still enjoy as much atheist evolution as I can get no matter what my high school said.

Jaycubed said: (2) Topics such as why objects such as a Soul or God are precluded by the 2nd Law.

Sylvilagus said: I'd be interested in hearing your argument for this.

Mike said:

Sarah said: I speak from my experience in Ohio schools (as a student) during their critical analysis curriculum. I still enjoy as much atheist evolution as I can get no matter what my high school said.

I was tangentially involved in the last struggle with the Ohio Board of Education, the Ohio superintendent, and the push to include anti-evolution propaganda in the Ohio science education standards. It was impossible to get data, anecdotal stories, or even hearsay about creationism in Ohio public schools, even though everyone was sure it was happening. It seemed no one was anxious to tell what they knew. The threat of legal action is taken seriously by these schools and communities, but it doesn't stop them. Can you give us the details? How did you come by the identification of evolution with atheism? Did your experience in high school biology have any effect on that?

Ravilyn Sanders said: It is not that they have a choice here. All the politicians are using the ID issue to burnish their credentials as the Great Defenders of the Faith. So the politicians have to talk overtly about their religious motives and how they are doing their utmost to bring God back into the schools. Because if you don't assure the average Joe Congregant that ID is religious and ID is going to bring God back into church, he won't support it. Thus the seeds of defeat in the courts is sown. Probably the politicians know that. But they don't care. What they want is vote, if the vote is bundled with a loss in the courts and huge bill to some school district, they don't care. Or they actually see it as a benefit. More talking points, more opportunities to feign outrage and more campaign issues.

Sarah said: As of my experiences,

Mike said: So it was made clear by the teachers that they did not agree with what they were required to teach? Can you identify the school, or region?

Mike said: So it was made clear by the teachers that they did not agree with what they were required to teach? Can you identify the school, or region?

Jaycubed said:

(2) Topics such as why objects such as a Soul or God are precluded by the 2nd Law.

Sylvilagus said:

"I'd be interested in hearing your argument for this."

-

Souls & Gods are alleged to have the property of eternal existence without any external input of energy to power/sustain them.

They define themselves to be closed systems either directly (ie. God encompasses all existence) or indirectly (ie. God, who encompasses all existence, did it).

Per the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, any closed system can only decrease its amount of energy/information through time.

Therefore any claim of an eternal God or soul is proscribed by the 2nd Law.

Given that the laws of thermodynamics describe systems made of particles that interact with each other via forces, I'd think one would have to first establish that souls and/or Gods fit that description before assuming that the 2nd law would apply to them.

Henry

Henry J said: Given that the laws of thermodynamics describe systems made of particles that interact with each other via forces, I'd think one would have to first establish that souls and/or Gods fit that description before assuming that the 2nd law would apply to them. Henry

Alas, Jaycubed, it doesn't follow. The Laws of Thermodynamics are accurate for the interactions of forces and particles/waves, and it doesn't matter a hoot that this wasn't understood before the laws were formulated. They cover what they cover - matter and energy - and not something else. God is something else entirely.

If God is what He is understood to be, that is, the Creator of time and space, matter and energy, and all things visible and invisible, material and immaterial, then it must follow that He is distinct from them. It would be contradictory to expect that He would be subject to the very same restrictions that He himself has created. He isn't part of the Universe. Why would you expect Him to act as if He were?

Your first point, assigning the burden of proof to the Deist, has more substance, and I concur. Deists are reduced to making further assumptions about Deity in order to meet it, and these grow steadily more esoteric as they proceed. Nevertheless, you might consider the argument from first cause: roughly, everything that we know of has a cause. If the Universe exists, something caused it. Call the something "God". One can proceed from that to consider why God caused the Universe, and so on to a description of motivation that might explain why such a God might not make Himself manifest. I am not recommending the exercise, mind, because it is essentially free of all evidence, and would be anathema to a scientist, and rightly so. I indulge in it as one might indulge in chocolate, or single malt whiskey - only in strict moderation, and as a guilty pleasure. It's not as if it's any use for anything.

Oh, and no, I'm not a Deist. I just don't think that it's quite as simple as applying a well-known law.

Dave wrote:

"I just don’t think that it’s quite as simple as applying a well-known law."

Right. Now if we could just get creationists to realize this.

Dave: “I just don’t think that it’s quite as simple as applying a well-known law.” DS: Right. Now if we could just get creationists to realize this.

That's the whole point, j^3, any gods would be "supernatural", i.e. beyond nature, therefore not bound by natural laws.

Therefore any claim of an eternal God or soul is proscribed by the 2nd Law.

mrg said: I was thinking more in terms of the Bonsells and the Buckinghams (and eventually the McLeroys).

"If God is what He is understood to be (1), that is, the Creator of time and space, matter and energy, and all things visible and invisible, material and immaterial (2), then it must follow that He is distinct from them.(3) It would be contradictory to expect that He would be subject to the very same restrictions that He himself has created.(4) He isn’t part of the Universe (5). Why would you expect Him to act as if He were?"
Dave Luckett

(1) I understand him to be a group fantasy without any existence except in the minds of humans.

(2) By immaterial, you mean things that don't actually exist. Magic.

(3) And why is that? Just because?

(4) And why is that? What is contradictory about it? It is the claims of/about god that are contradictory, for example, omnipotence and omniscience are mutually contradictory. Omnipresence is contradictory to the well established physical law of special relativity.

(5) Certainly he is, he is an artifice of human thought & behavior.

(6) Since he doesn't exist, I would not expect any "behavior" at all. If he did exist, I would expect a massive amount of evidence of "exceptions" to physical laws caused by his "miraculous" interventions into reality, and there isn't the slightest bit of such evidence. In other words, if god did not have to obey the physical laws of the universe, evidence of his "fingerprints" would be apparent.

Ravilyn Sanders -

That's an excellent classification system.

I've previously noted the the existence of two broad groups on many occasions, and noted that I have some sympathy for the preyed upon but none for the educated predators.

However, clearly I was lumping ignoramus with vulgaris and predatory majoria with predatory minoria.

I believe that the finer distinctions are valid and useful.

We need to adopt different strategies to deal with these different species...

— Ravilyn Sanders

Frank J said: While that is the most important - and painfully underutilized - classification system, don't forget "x-axis" couterpart to your "y-axis." That's where they are further subdivided them into YECs, OECs and IDers. There are few if any "pure" IDers among the the C.v and C.i, but C.v's include many who don't know what to believe, and often parrot sound bites like "the jury's still out." The X-axis is most important for the C.p groups, because there are different ways to respond to YECs, OECs and IDers. Though all responses should emphasize getting them to say as much about the "whats" and "whens" of their paricular account of biological origins, and any irreconcilable differences they may have with other C.p's.

Kevin B said:

Frank J said: While that is the most important - and painfully underutilized - classification system, don't forget "x-axis" couterpart to your "y-axis." That's where they are further subdivided them into YECs, OECs and IDers. There are few if any "pure" IDers among the the C.v and C.i, but C.v's include many who don't know what to believe, and often parrot sound bites like "the jury's still out." The X-axis is most important for the C.p groups, because there are different ways to respond to YECs, OECs and IDers. Though all responses should emphasize getting them to say as much about the "whats" and "whens" of their paricular account of biological origins, and any irreconcilable differences they may have with other C.p's.

Perhaps you need to employ a few extra levels of grouping, and put OEC, YEC and ID into separate genera(?) I would have thought that using Paleo-, neo- and crypto- prefixes would do quite nicely. Also "creationist" isn't very good Latin. How about "Fiatlucifer" (unless anyone knows the Latin for "big tent") (I'm also still waiting for a excuse to use Oligoprofundis dembskii and Pseudocaledonica davidi.)

Perhaps you need to employ a few extra levels of grouping, and put OEC, YEC and ID into separate genera(?)

— Kevin B

Frank J -

Let's look at the Y axis.

The prey species are all YEC; they have no reason to be creationist except to be YEC.

The DI is a YEC organization, funded by YEC (Ahmanson), containing many overt YEC fellows (Wells etc), and pandering to YEC consumers. ID is just a (failed) way to court-proof contradiction of science for sectarian reasons, in public school.

Just because some DI spokespeople are particularly weaselly about the age of the earth and so on doesn't change its YEC nature. Is there a DI fellow who openly denies the possibility of YEC and argues vigorously for an old earth?

OEC is an anachronism. If any of the Bible is symbolic, all of it can be symbolic. Creationists say that all the time as a rejection of any symbolism (indeed, they often say the if any of it is symbolic, the whole thing is worthless; even an apatheist like me doesn't agree with that).

There are probably a few old geezers still pitching OEC, but they just thought that they were "reconciling science and religion" in 1937 and never moved on.

Jaycubed said: (1) I understand him (God) to be a group fantasy without any existence except in the minds of humans.

(2) By immaterial, you mean things that don't actually exist. Magic.

(3) And why is that? Just because?

(4) And why is that? What is contradictory about it? It is the claims of/about god that are contradictory, for example, omnipotence and omniscience are mutually contradictory. Omnipresence is contradictory to the well established physical law of special relativity.

(5) Certainly he is (part of the Universe), he is an artifice of human thought & behavior.

(6) Since he doesn't exist, I would not expect any "behavior" at all. If he did exist, I would expect a massive amount of evidence of "exceptions" to physical laws caused by his "miraculous" interventions into reality, and there isn't the slightest bit of such evidence. In other words, if god did not have to obey the physical laws of the universe, evidence of his "fingerprints" would be apparent.

By immaterial, you mean things that don’t actually exist. Magic.

— Dave Luckett

This is the argument from incredulity: “I don’t believe in the non-material, therefore the non-material doesn’t exist.”

Certainly he is (part of the Universe), he is an artifice of human thought & behavior.

— Dave Luckett

As has often been observed in this blog, repeated assertion is not the same as evidence, or argument, either.

The deist would answer, in the first place, contrary to your statement, there are many well-documented examples of miracles.

GuyeFaux said:

By immaterial, you mean things that don’t actually exist. Magic.

— Dave Luckett

This is the argument from incredulity: “I don’t believe in the non-material, therefore the non-material doesn’t exist.”

You're attributing to people poor arguments which they didn't make, misclassifying those poor arguments, and then refuting them. Congratulations, you're a hell of a debater.

Certainly he is (part of the Universe), he is an artifice of human thought & behavior.

As has often been observed in this blog, repeated assertion is not the same as evidence, or argument, either.

It’s the first time he mentioned this argument.

GuyeFaux said:

The deist would answer, in the first place, contrary to your statement, there are many well-documented examples of miracles.

Seriously? Name just one example of an event that would be considered "well-documented" by a standard that doesn't also include for instance the birth of the Buddha, the awakening of Quetzacoatl, and the destruction of the Death Star at the hands of Rebel Scum.

Dave Luckett said: There is no evidence that immaterial things cannot exist - or at least, none was advanced.

tomh said:

Dave Luckett said: There is no evidence that immaterial things cannot exist - or at least, none was advanced.

How would you gather evidence that something cannot exist? What would that evidence even look like? I would just like to know how one could tell the difference between the nonmaterial and the nonexistent. They seem identical to me.

Frank J said: While that is the most important - and painfully underutilized - classification system, don't forget "x-axis" couterpart to your "y-axis." That's where they are further subdivided them into YECs, OECs and IDers. There are few if any "pure" IDers among the the C.v and C.i, but C.v's include many who don't know what to believe, and often parrot sound bites like "the jury's still out."

WE'LL BURY YOU, ATHEISTS!

i think this will be more effective:

visit

http://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread/11853/

to see how we WON THE MILLION DOLLAR PARANORMAL CHALLENGE

and CRUSHED the entire atheist movement...

and PZ too....

predict the future too!

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.music.depeche-mode/browse_thread/thread/a07c0d5d7c986593?ie=UTF-8&q=depeche+mode+nostradamus+enjoy+the+silence+markuze&pli=1

WE'LL BURY YOU, ATHEISTS!

i think this will be more effective:

visit

http://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread/11853/

to see how we WON THE MILLION DOLLAR PARANORMAL CHALLENGE

and CRUSHED the entire atheist movement...

and PZ too....

predict the future too!

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.music.depeche-mode/browse_thread/thread/a07c0d5d7c986593?ie=UTF-8&q=depeche+mode+nostradamus+enjoy+the+silence+markuze&pli=1

Dave Luckett wrote:
There is no evidence that immaterial things cannot exist

Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews said:

Dave Luckett wrote:
There is no evidence that immaterial things cannot exist

But the onus is on the deist/theist/Xian/whatever making the claim for the existence of immaterial things to demonstrate their existence. You cannot logically assume that they do indeed exist and then ask for others to disprove it. That's poor logic.

There are probably a few old geezers still pitching OEC, but they just thought that they were “reconciling science and religion” in 1937 and never moved on.

— harold

The DI is a YEC organization, funded by YEC (Ahmanson), containing many overt YEC fellows (Wells etc), and pandering to YEC consumers.

— harold

As a lurker here, I enjoy reading your posts, but I think I must respectfully disagree with your placing intelligent design on the same axis as YEC and OEC. It’s my opinion that ID isn’t a category of belief in itself, the way YEC and OEC are, but is instead a strategy employed by these various groups to promote anti-evolution pseudoscience in the public arena.

— Altait IV

tomh said: How would you gather evidence that something cannot exist? What would that evidence even look like? I would just like to know how one could tell the difference between the nonmaterial and the nonexistent. They seem identical to me.

Oops, hit Submit instead of Preview. Just to finish my thought...

...So, the point is that you don't attempt to gather evidence about whether something exists. You gather evidence on what it does to - how it impacts - the world around us. And if you find that it does nothing to the world around us, then that is all science really cares about.

Frank J and Altair IV -

I think there is no disagreement between us in the end, and I think that this underscores the value of Ravilyn Sanders classification.

Rather than a Y axis, Frank, I think you are identifying a characteristic that distinguishes the predator species from the prey species.

DI products are consumed by the prey species; I include funding the institute as a form of "consumption".

Although there are many crackpot groups who might SEEM to be ideal customers for vaguely worded, convoluted nonsense, denying biological evolution, in practice the consumers are in a vast, vast majority YEC.

Why is this? I believe that it is based explained with reference to social and political dynamics. Most UFO cults or the like are non-authoritarian, at least with respect to the outside world, at least in practice (many of them are sincerely humanitarian in ethical outlook). Many crackpot groups are also superficially respectful of science, even more prone to contain certain types of scientifically educated people than the general public, and the problems they do have with science are not necessarily focused on biological evolution.

DI products are not really philosophical, but legal in nature. They are designed solely with the idea in mind, of giving an option to teachers who wish to deny mainstream science in public schools. In practice, the vast majority of people who wish to do this operate from a YEC, fundamentalist, anti-intellectual, highly authoritarian perspective, which is common in many rural parts of the US.

DI products don't work, and the relationship between the DI and their users is like the relationship between Acme and Wile E. Coyote, but they are "designed" to win court cases.

But of course, the predator species who designs the DI product must, by definition, be vague and disingenuous about their specific views. Any creationism that overtly admits to being inspired by Genesis is out. "Anything to deny evolution that might bamboozle in court" is their method of operation. (There are also predators who are not specifically concerned with the legal system, who run "creation museums" and the like, but for court and legislature oriented predators, vagueness and coded messages are necessary.)

In practice, the prey are simple authoritarian YEC fundamentalists, on a mission to force everyone in the world to overtly submit to their particular religious claims.

The predators pretend to assist the prey (a complex baiting strategy). By definition, they often operate on a "say anything to deny evolution" manner, although others operate on a more straightforward "feed the rubes pure YEC" manner as well. Hence the variety Frank notes - in the predator species.

In practice, the vast majority of people who wish to do this operate from a YEC, fundamentalist, anti-intellectual, highly authoritarian perspective, which is common in many rural parts of the US.

— harold

Dave Luckett said: Nobody is assuming that they exist, only that it is not impossible that they do, a far lesser standard. I am not arguing for or against the existence of God, or any immaterial thing. I am only arguing that dogmatic statements either way are unwarranted.

tomh said: If it were any other subject the overwhelming opinion would be that the probability of this thing being true is approaching zero and the idea would be abandoned. Unfortunately, it's so ingrained in us that we must accommodate this outlandish idea that instead it's rationality that is abandoned.

There is another demographic, however, that I write about often, though I left it out of this thread, because even with 3+ “dimensions” and many categories, it can get complicated. These are not the hopeless authoritarians (or the activists themselves) but the increasing “unsure” types (20+% per 2 recent polls that allow that choice) who fall for some anti-evolution sound bites with the unwitting help of the media. They tend to concede the ages, and sometimes even common descent when their misconceptions are cleared up. Some (another 10-20%) even admit that evolution is the best explanation, but still think it’s fair to “teach the controversy” (as I did in the ’90s). Indirectly, the DI is influencing them by avoiding the more cartoonish creationism of the Hovind types.

Frank J said:

There are probably a few old geezers still pitching OEC, but they just thought that they were “reconciling science and religion” in 1937 and never moved on.

— harold

OEC Hugh Ross has been getting vocal lately, possibly emboldened by the DI's failure at Dover and the poor showing of "Expelled."

harold said: 3) When dealing with such people, unlike when dealing with creationists, respectful tone, care to understand what the person is actually saying/asking, restraint from unjustified explosions of anger, restraint from insults, and tolerance toward whatever completely personal, non-disprovable, and not-the-subject-of-discussion spiritual beliefs they may have makes a big difference. Of course, more common than genuinely confused people are creationists posing as such people, but it never takes more than a few minutes for a creationist to explode into insults, unjustified anger, and so on, so it's very easy to tell the difference.

"I understand him (God) to be a group fantasy without any existence except in the minds of humans."
Jaycubed

"Is it conceivably possible that your understanding could be faulty?"

Dave Luckett

-

Why certainly it is both conceivable & possible; but at present my understanding incorporates all the available evidence I have come across in better than a half century of experience & education. This includes a vast amount of study/experience of both contemporary & historical religious/cultural/political practices & beliefs as well as science & pseudo-science.

The difference for Believers is that it is neither conceivable nor possible to them that their understanding can be wrong.

If there was any genuine evidence for supernatural intervention into reality beyond the claims of Believers it seems highly unlikely that such actual evidence wouldn't be apparent after thousands of years of human history.

So, my estimation of the probability of my understanding of the "nature of god" as a human construct & shared delusion is extremely high (all physical evidence supports that understanding) and the probability of any of the descriptions of the "nature of god" proposed by any current or historical religion are exceedingly low.

Particularly since it would be so trivial for a god to demonstrate evidence for his existence.

The only possible conclusions are:

(1) God is a group fantasy without any existence except in the minds of humans.

(2) God "hides" and is intentionally deceptive: a liar, manipulator & deceiver. Such a being would be unworthy of worship even if it did actually exist. The god of Abraham (as described in the 3 primary texts of his Religion; the Jewish Bible, the Christian Bible and the Muslim bible or Koran) is such a despicable murderous lunatic being, worthy only of contempt.

The odds are heavily in favor of conclusion #1.

tomh said:

An extraordinary claim, such as, "most likely God exists," should have at least a modicum of evidence backing it up in order to be taken seriously. The Christian God has been around for 2000 years or so without a shred of evidence suggesting it's true. Other gods have been around even longer with the same result.

Modern claims of miracles are often quite carefully investigated, for example by the Catholic Church during its canonisation process, with multiple eyewitnesses examined and cross-examined, medical records interrogated, and panels of experts assessing material, all with the instruction that any possible weakness be found and natural causes must be fully investigated with a view to their operation. I am myself skeptical of this. Nevertheless, unless "evidence" is to be defined as "data obtained by repeated demonstration of a phenomenon under controlled and variable conditions", this constitutes at least "a shred of evidence". I understand that scientists, quite rightly, regard such evidence as unsatisfactory. So it is, by their standards. But that is not to say that it doesn't exist. One can rightly invoke the principle of parsimony and Occam's Razor, a priori skepticism and the proper placement of the burden of proof. These are, however, methods of dealing with imperfect evidence, not evidence themselves. By its very nature, evidence for the intervention of God outside the natural order cannot be demonstrated and observed under controlled conditions. The immaterial, by definition, cannot be demonstrated by material evidence at all. What it comes down to is that we do not know, and we should not reason beyond the data. When did it ever embarrass a scientist to say as much?

Goddam thing wouldn't remove the blockquote tag at the end, no matter what I did. Sorry.

One can rightly invoke the principle of parsimony and Occam’s Razor, a priori skepticism and the proper placement of the burden of proof. These are, however, methods of dealing with imperfect evidence, not evidence themselves. By its very nature, evidence for the intervention of God outside the natural order cannot be demonstrated and observed under controlled conditions. The immaterial, by definition, cannot be demonstrated by material evidence at all.

— Dave Luckett

Jaycubed said: The only possible conclusions are: (1) God is a group fantasy without any existence except in the minds of humans. (2) God "hides" and is intentionally deceptive: a liar, manipulator & deceiver. Such a being would be unworthy of worship even if it did actually exist. The god of Abraham (as described in the 3 primary texts of his Religion; the Jewish Bible, the Christian Bible and the Muslim bible or Koran) is such a despicable murderous lunatic being, worthy only of contempt. The odds are heavily in favor of conclusion #1.

If this is not inherently impossible (and I confess that I cannot see why it would be), then there is a third possibility: God exists, and has good reason not to manifest Himself. Mind, it is only a possibility. I am not accepting it into belief. As to its odds, I’m afraid I lack adequate data to compute them. It is at this point that Pascal’s wager raises its disturbing head.

— Dave Luckett

Mike Elzinga said: I say we shouldn’t worry ourselves about it. We have more than enough to do as it is. And we still have to fight off sectarians attempting to enslave the rest of us.

Dave Luckett said: The immaterial, by definition, cannot be demonstrated by material evidence at all. What it comes down to is that we do not know, and we should not reason beyond the data. When did it ever embarrass a scientist to say as much?

eric said: See, I slightly disagree with you guys. I think you can demonstrate the immaterial, if the person who thinks it exists can agree on a hypothesis about what impact it has on the world.

Dave Luckett said: Modern claims of miracles are often quite carefully investigated, for example by the Catholic Church during its canonisation process, ...

I understand that scientists, quite rightly, regard such evidence as unsatisfactory. So it is, by their standards. But that is not to say that it doesn't exist.

Mike Elzinga said: As is say, we don’t need to worry ourselves about it. We have more important things to do.

Mike Elzinga said: That, however, is a mighty big and ambiguous if.

As is say, we don’t need to worry ourselves about it. We have more important things to do.

Is there no other possible reason? For example, could God be aware that the smallest intimation of His actual presence and power would so overwhelm human minds as to destroy free will?

eric said: I think we do need to worry about it, at least a little. I share your opinion that pratical matters are more important to study (than, say, theological matters), but the point of creationism is to take resources currently allocated to science and move them to theology. You need to pay attention to what creos or saying or you may find you don't have the funding to do the more important things.

Mike Elzinga said: They need to be hit in their pocket books instead of passing the costs of their disruptions onto the public.

I'm sorry, I see you were talking about the lobbyists, not the officials. My mistake. But I think that would be even tougher, just about anyone can lobby for any cause they want. It's the officials who are responsible.

tomh said: I'm sorry, I see you were talking about the lobbyists, not the officials. My mistake. But I think that would be even tougher, just about anyone can lobby for any cause they want. It's the officials who are responsible.

To update Emerson, "Foolish inconsistency is the hallmark of Believers' minds".

tomh, stevaroni, I composed replies to your posts. On reflection, however, I do not believe that further debate serves any purpose, and is opposed to the just interests of this blog. I regret that I continue not to know, despite the arguments that you have advanced.

it is noteworthy so why oppose it