News Flash: Texas Rejects Weaknesses

Posted 26 March 2009 by Reed A. Cartwright

According to Texas Freedom Network's live blog, the proposal to include "strengths and weaknesses" language to the Texas education standards has failed with a 7-7 vote. An alternative proposal to include the language "including discussing what is not fully understood so as to encourage critical thinking by the student" was also rejected 7-7. The rejection of this alternative is noteworthy because the creationists on the board and the current culture war strategy of the Discovery Institute have argued that students should learn "more" about evolution to develop critical thinking skills. The alternative language fit directly in that rationalization, but in a scientifically rigorous way. And that was the problem. During the debate over the alternative several creationist board members directly opposed it because it did not include teaching "weaknesses" to the students, which they have now confirmed is a code word for the lies creationists invent about science and the natural world. The process is not over. There are still more proposals being floated and voted on, many of them still anti-science and anti-education. Update: Success was short-lived. Several amendments that encourage bad teachers to include pseudo-science and lies in the classroom made it into the final standards. See the comments for links.

42 Comments

Kenneth Baggaley · 26 March 2009

What 'weaknesses', exactly, would they teach?

Tony Whitson · 26 March 2009

Actually, the news is mixed.

After rejecting S&W, they PASSED amendments challenging "unguided natural processes," common descent, etc.

A bright spot Wednesday was Genie Scott's testimony. Audio is available to play or download at
https://tw-curricuwiki.wikispaces.com/EugenieScottTexasMarch252009

Reed A. Cartwright · 26 March 2009

Take your pick.

Wayne F · 26 March 2009

Could “unguided natural processes" be interpreted as evolution?

Mike Elzinga · 26 March 2009

Wayne F said: Could “unguided natural processes" be interpreted as evolution?

These are code words that will permit all the ID/Creationists’ misconceptions about physics, chemistry and biology into the classroom. “Unguided natural process” is a terrifying idea to the fundamentalists behind these modifications. In their mind, such processes are not permitted in the universe. Their deity has to step in an make everything go in the right direction. It all ties into the "tornado-in-a-junkyard" misrepresentation (and all its cognates) of thermodynamics.

KP · 26 March 2009

Reed A. Cartwright said: Take your pick.

Indeed. Too many for one person to fend off, especially a high school teacher -- even when armed with the factual rebuttals.

Flint · 26 March 2009

I think Kenneth Baggaley has confused actual weaknesses with creationist lies. In the larger picture, the main actual weakness is the sheer lack of time to present the background necessary to provide the context within which the creationist claims can be unmasked. Instead of 1 or 2 class periods, that would take several years.

Dan · 26 March 2009

Wayne F said: Could “unguided natural processes" be interpreted as evolution?

Not in a scientific way. According to the usually accepted criteria of science, science can't say whether a process is guided or unguided. See http://ncseweb.org/religion/science-religion-methodology-humanism (The word they use is "supervised" rather than "guided".)

Ron Okimoto · 27 March 2009

Agosto apparently voted against, but from his comment about science, he doesn't seem like the type of science supporter they need on the board.

Frank J · 27 March 2009

Indeed. Too many for one person to fend off, especially a high school teacher – even when armed with the factual rebuttals.
— KP

Even just a few of those "weaknesses" are taught, they would be easy-to-remember, "feel-good" sound bites that exploit students' prior misconceptions. Whereas the technical rebuttals would be confusing and/or counterintuitive. The combination of an excellent teacher and an open-minded, science-literate student might defeat the intent of the scam artists to mislead, but that would occur so seldom that it's worth the risk to them.

After rejecting S&W, they PASSED amendments challenging “unguided natural processes,” common descent, etc.
— Tony Whitson

While that's probably bad news in that it makes it easier for creationist teachers to mislead students, the DI probably wishes that the amendment did not call attention to common descent. The DI has been trying very hard to cover up the fact that its original anti-evolution arguments (Behe's and Dembski's, if not the ones Wells ripped off from classic creationists) do not challenge - or even claim to challenge common descent. We ought to take advantage of this to call for Behe (accepts CD) and McLeroy (denies CD) to debate common descent. Would McLeroy dare to challenge a fellow activist? Would Behe? Would the DI let him? Whether there is a debate or just evasion and/or spin, it can't help but give more exposure to the fact that anti-evolution activism consists of nothing but failed, mutually contradictory attempts at science that have degenerated into a sleazy bait-and-switch scam.

Tony Whitson · 27 March 2009

For Behe on Common Descent, see
http://curricublog.wordpress.com/2009/01/23/behe-says-common-descent-is-tru/

John Kwok · 27 March 2009

I would like to think that Genie Scott's testimony might have helped tip the balance. As she noted here a few days ago, she was invited to speak again before the board.

Frank J · 27 March 2009

Tony Whitson said: For Behe on Common Descent, see http://curricublog.wordpress.com/2009/01/23/behe-says-common-descent-is-tru/

Thanks for the link. As you probably know, in "Only A Theory," Ken Miller notes how the ID scam has succeeded in dividing "evolutionists" (mostly into theist and atheist subsets) and uniting anti-evolutionists (YECs, OECs, IDers). McLeroy is evon on record endorsing the big tent and discouraging questioning the age of the earth, so his directly addressing common descent was a surprise - to me at least. Apparently his idealism is at odds with the pragmatism of the "big tent" strategy. I really hope our side can use this to our advantage. I understand the importance of linking ID to "S&W" to creationism, but after Dover that's a done deal. Now we can get even more mileage by exploiting the irreconcilable differences and associated cover-ups among the various "kinds" of anti-evolution activist.

Mike Elzinga · 27 March 2009

Frank J said: Now we can get even more mileage by exploiting the irreconcilable differences and associated cover-ups among the various "kinds" of anti-evolution activist.

We can also stick the label of pseudo-science on them. They have built up such a large stash of it on their websites and in their literature that it’s high time they are clearly identified with other hucksters. When the public thinks of ID/Creationism, they should also think snake oil peddlers. And it won’t be a lie.

mrg · 27 March 2009

Mike Elzinga said: When the public thinks of ID/Creationism, they should also think snake oil peddlers.

I always think: NIGERIAN INTERNET SCAMMERS. But they're more imaginative. MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net

Robin · 27 March 2009

Oh man...there goes FL and Novparl's Waterloo...again...

DavidK · 27 March 2009

Lou Dobbs covered this story on CNN Thursday night. He was just awful; a basic interpretation of what he implied was let's give creationism a chance. There are gaps in the fossil records, there are differences, let's hear both sides. He quoted the TBE chair, but failed to mention the 50+ scientific organizations that have nixed this creationist push (or is it "pusch"). Gosh, who can argue with the religious side...

Kenneth Baggaley · 27 March 2009

Flint said: I think Kenneth Baggaley has confused actual weaknesses with creationist lies. In the larger picture, the main actual weakness is the sheer lack of time to present the background necessary to provide the context within which the creationist claims can be unmasked. Instead of 1 or 2 class periods, that would take several years.

Actually, I'm a long time reader or Talkorigins.org, so I'm aware of the usual suspects. I'm really wondering, when they say 'weaknesses', are there any specific items they promote as 'should be taught'? Is there a course addendum they propose? 'Weaknesses' says nothing - what is the actual counter-proposed item(s) they want to teach? I suspect they don't enumerate, since the evidence against those points is well documented. I'm just wondering how specific their syllabus is.

KP · 27 March 2009

Frank J said: We ought to take advantage of this to call for Behe (accepts CD) and McLeroy (denies CD) to debate common descent....it can't help but give more exposure to the fact that anti-evolution activism consists of nothing but failed, mutually contradictory attempts at science that have degenerated into a sleazy bait-and-switch scam.

I agree. The more letters to the editor I read using ancient creationist arguments like Piltdown Man and human population growth, the more I think that we should really bring the "contradictory attempts at science" to center stage and let people see how superior the real science is. It worked in Dover with a relatively conservative judge, I've seen it start to work with open-minded friends raised for years in fundamentalist churches, and I think the general public will get hip to the data when given an opportunity to actually see it, especially combined with the lack thereof on the "other side" of the [pseudo]-controversy.

Flint · 27 March 2009

‘Weaknesses’ says nothing - what is the actual counter-proposed item(s) they want to teach?

I don't know which specific creationist misrepresentation, if any, has been specified. I don't think it much matters, so long as creationist science teachers (there are many) get to select from the posted list as their mood and preferences suit them. The important point is that 9th graders are not armed with the knowledge to dispute creationist lies on the merits. Imagine if a 9th grade physics teacher said "One of the problems with the theory of gravity right now is that it cannot explain why the moon isn't spinning." How is a 14-year-old kid supposed to respond to a claim like this, other than to note it down for later regurgitation on a test? Hey, there are tenured PH.D.s in biochemistry making claims that some biological structures (but apparently not others) could not possibly have evolved, and an expert can tell just by looking which ones these are. Is a 9th grader supposed to doubt this? How?

KP · 28 March 2009

Flint said: How is a 14-year-old kid supposed to respond to a claim like this, other than to note it down for later regurgitation on a test? Hey, there are tenured PH.D.s in biochemistry making claims that some biological structures (but apparently not others) could not possibly have evolved, and an expert can tell just by looking which ones these are. Is a 9th grader supposed to doubt this? How?

This is precisely why creationists are so keen on getting the opportunity to plant these seeds in high school biology. You never hear them talk about trying to get it into colleges and universities. You never hear them talk about all the papers they're trying to publish in the peer-reviewed literature. If their science were on par with mainstream science, they'd be submitting papers frequently enough to back up their ridiculous claims.

DesertLimbo · 28 March 2009

My goodness, science is being polluted by extremists on both sides, both creationists and secular fundamentalists.

You should listen to yourselves. You are against teaching the weaknesses of evolutionary theory based on some kind of slippery slope argument? What a bunch of baloney. In what other branch of science would we care if weaknesses and/or gaps were openly discussed? Ridiculous. You only care because, for most of you, it is an affront to your worldview. Well too bad. Science doesn't (and shouldn't) care about your worldview.

Keep creationism out of science class, yes, but if someone wants to talk about the gaps and weaknesses in evolutionary theory, more power to 'em. That's what science is all about.

Stop BEING SO DAMN DOGMATIC AND NARROW MINDED. Sheesh.

fnxtr · 28 March 2009

Okay, desert:

Which "gaps and weaknesses" should be taught to 15-year-olds?

Evolution, if it gets any time at all in Science 9, might get 2 to 8 hours. How many of these hours should be used up with stealth creationism?

Really, I want to know what you consider a weakness of evolution, aside from "we don't know everything yet".

DavidK · 28 March 2009

Can you believe that those spin doctors have already whirled themselves dizzy spin and stated that Texas actually supported the teaching of evolution by eliminating the strengths & weaknesses argument?

http://www.discovery.org/a/9851

Those guys are incredible! I think they all got their degrees from the ICR.

Dave Luckett · 28 March 2009

You tell us to listen, DesertLimbo, but you're the one not listening. Listen: the Theory of Evolution is as well established as Newton's Theory of Gravitation or Mendeleev's Theory of the Atomic Table. It isn't remotely controversial among scientists who know the field. There are no "weaknesses" in the sense of contrary evidence or logical fallacies. None whatsoever.

That's why Darwin's ToE should be taught in biology classes in the public schools, just as Newton's and Mendeleev's theories are in physics and chemistry classes: because they are close models of the way that reality behaves, and that isn't debatable. Later, students can be taught about general relativity, later still about quantum mechanics. Maybe later, universal field theory, if we find one. But that doesn't happen in middle school, nor even, in most cases, in senior high school. Newton is where we start in physics, Mendeleev and Rutherford in chemistry (if not before), and Darwin is where we start in evolutionary biology. Later perhaps, we go on to genetics, DNA, the biochemical analysis of mutation, punctuated equilibrium and the modern synthesis.

The "weaknesses" and "gaps" language that the creationists - you do realise that these are creationists who want this, don't you? - want to sneak into the curriculum are nothing more than code-words for teaching kids falsehoods about nature that were thoroughly demolished decades or centuries ago. That's the "controversy" they're promoting. It doesn't exist, except in their own minds. To teach it is to promote ignorance and superstition, not open enquiry. They want to licence evangelists to inject their religion into the public schools - and let's not be prissy about this, the religion in question is in almost every single case biblical literalist fundamentalism.

If every middle-school science teacher were actually a trained biologist and a real scientist, then it might be possible to relax. Alas, it isn't so. Many are not deeply versed in the issues nor fully aware of the evidence. Many are likely to be intimidated by fundamentalist parents and boards. Some are aggressive fundamentalists themselves, with no special training or knowledge in evolutionary biology. Not a few are without professional qualifications in any scientific field. They shouldn't be teaching it at all, of course. But the least that can be done is to insist that they teach science and not their creed.

And that must be insisted on, and weasel words about "controversies" that don't exist, and "weaknesses" and "gaps" that aren't real, must be prevented from appearing in the legislation and the regulations pursuant to it.

KP · 28 March 2009

DesertLimbo said: You are against teaching the weaknesses... Keep creationism out of science class, yes, but if someone wants to talk about the gaps and weaknesses in evolutionary theory, more power to 'em. That's what science is all about.

Where are the peer-reviewed, published accounts of legitimate weaknesses? And by "legitimate" I don't mean recycled arguments like the Piltdown Man fraud somehow making all of the validated fossils out there magically disappear. Where does the ToE fail in some major way where an "alternative" explanation succeeds?

Frank J · 28 March 2009

You should listen to yourselves. You are against teaching the weaknesses of evolutionary theory based on some kind of slippery slope argument?
— DesertLimbo

We are listening to ourselves, and to people like you. That you said that shows clearly that you are not listening to us. E.g. "fnxtr" wrote:

Evolution, if it gets any time at all in Science 9, might get 2 to 8 hours. How many of these hours should be used up with stealth creationism?

That is on the order of 0.01% of a 9th grader's waking hours. The anti-evolution activists are free to pollute their minds for the other ~99.9% already. Ask youself: (1) Why is that not good enough for the activists? (2) Why don't the activists ever recommend resources like this - where every "weakness" they ever dreamed of is critically analyzed? I think you know the answer. They (and you?) don't want students to analyze the "weaknesses" in context.

Frank J · 28 March 2009

Many [middle-school science teachers] are likely to be intimidated by fundamentalist parents and boards. Some are aggressive fundamentalists themselves, with no special training or knowledge in evolutionary biology.
— Dave Luckett

As you know, the Discovery Institute discourages the teaching of not just creationism, but even their own ID, and only demands "strengths and weaknesses" which amounts to "teach evolution, then misrepresent it." Yet where are they when teachers like John Freshwater teach Biblical creationism, or when teachers are intimidated into omitting or downplaying evolution? Talk is cheap, but when it comes to action, their double standard is astonishing. It shows beyond the shadow of a doubt that they don't have an ounce of integrity, and that their pretense of teaching "critical analysis" is a bald-faced lie. The irony is that, if they did occasionally vocally oppose teachers like Freshwater, or parents and administrators who intimidate teachers, it might help them in court.

FL · 28 March 2009

Big Win in Texas as State Now Leads Nation in Requiring Critical Analysis of Evolution in High School Science Classes --- Robert Crowther, Evolution News and Views In a huge victory for those who favor teaching the scientific evidence for and against evolution, Texas today moved to the head of the class by requiring students to “critique” and examine “all sides of scientific evidence” and specifically requiring students to “analyze and evaluate” the evidence for major evolutionary concepts such as common ancestry, natural selection, and mutations. "Texas has sent a clear message that evolution should be taught as a scientific theory open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned," said Dr. John West, Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute. “Contrary to the claims of the evolution lobby, absolutely nothing the Board did promotes ‘creationism’ or religion in the classroom. Groups that assert otherwise are lying, plain and simple. Under the new standards, students will be expected to analyze and evaluate the scientific evidence for evolution, not religion. Period.” The new requirements were contained in revised science standards approved today by the Texas State Board of Education. The science standards include language requiring students to "analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations…including examining all sides of scientific evidence… so as to encourage critical thinking by the student." Equally important, the high school biology standards now require students to “analyze and evaluate” the scientific evidence for key parts of evolutionary theory, including common ancestry, natural selection, and mutations. Discovery Institute has long endorsed the idea that evolution should be fully and completely presented to students, including its unresolved issues.

With science standards in Texas and Louisiana now solidly decided, the winds of change have arrived. This is it baby. It's time for the Non-Darwinists to go all out. It's time for science education to .... "evolve." (Insert quiet "Dr. Phibes" chuckle here. You know, the one he does at the end of the movie.) FL :)

Stanton · 28 March 2009

Please explain how students will be able to understand Evolution and science better by forcing them to critique it before they have learned about it, as well as by casting unreasonable doubt on the whole of the scientific process.

Also, please explain again why we should teach Intelligent Design as an alternative scientific explanation in a science classroom if it has been repeatedly demonstrated that Intelligent Design is neither scientific nor an explanation.

Stanton · 28 March 2009

Also, FL, can you show us how Kansas and Florida benefited from having their science curricula made more Intelligent Design/Creationism friendly? If this is for the better, then, how come Kansans voted out the board members who implemented those changes? I mean, you never did explain how turning the school systems into academic hellholes will benefit students.

DS · 28 March 2009

John wrote:

“Texas has sent a clear message that evolution should be taught as a scientific theory open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can’t be questioned,...”

Exactly what does this guy think that scientists do? Exactly why does this guy think that the theory of evolution has come to be so well tested and so well accepted? Oh yea I forgot, it's all one big conspiracy to fool everybody. Well if that's the case then you've got a lot bigger problems than revising how evolution is taught. In that case you should at least be trying to do some research of your own. Now why do you suppose he doesn't even mention trying to do that?

Brian Stanley · 28 March 2009

All scientific theories are "open to critical scrutiny, and never should be taught as a sacred dogma that can’t be questioned". No matter if it is gravity or evolution, it is the nature of science that it deals with a level of uncertainty. Nevertheless, many interpret this to mean that anyones "opinion" is a valid theory. Developing students critical thinking abilities and expecting them to be able to "analyze and evaluate" what they have learned is crucial. However, there is no guarantee the standard will be met, and that such analyses and evaluations are accurate. I am curious how (and if) this standard can be actually be measured. After numerous attempts by creationists to insert Intelligent Design into a science curriculum, the only clear fact is that Intelligent Design is neither intelligent, scientific, nor an explanation.

Stanton · 28 March 2009

Brian Stanley said: All scientific theories are "open to critical scrutiny, and never should be taught as a sacred dogma that can’t be questioned". No matter if it is gravity or evolution, it is the nature of science that it deals with a level of uncertainty. Nevertheless, many interpret this to mean that anyones "opinion" is a valid theory. Developing students critical thinking abilities and expecting them to be able to "analyze and evaluate" what they have learned is crucial. However, there is no guarantee the standard will be met, and that such analyses and evaluations are accurate. I am curious how (and if) this standard can be actually be measured. After numerous attempts by creationists to insert Intelligent Design into a science curriculum, the only clear fact is that Intelligent Design is neither intelligent, scientific, nor an explanation.

Yet, not only are Intelligent Design proponents and Creationists opposed to scrutinizing Intelligent Design ~~Theory~~ and Creationism, many of them even admit that neither is a scientific explanation, and that neither was ever intended to be used in science. Yet, they insist on having either (or both) inserted into science curricula. That's like a quack admitting that his snake oil panacea can't cure anything, but is still adamant in insisting that it should be put on the market as a cure-all.

Frank J · 28 March 2009

It’s time for the Non-Darwinists to go all out.
— FL

What in your ultra-young fantasy world is a "Non-Darwinist"? Would you include Stuart Kauffman, who has criticized ID/creationism, and only argues that there is something "naturalistic" other than natural selection driving descent with modification? And once those "Non-Darwinists" to go all out, should the YECs and OECs be expected to critically analyze each other's "theory" without reference to evolution? Or does your fantasy world invoke double standards any time your instant gratification is threatened?

James F · 28 March 2009

Um, FL...how does pretending that there is scientific evidence refuting common descent, natural selection, and evolution in general help kids understand science? If the winds are changing, it's toward academic fraud and breaches of the Establishment Clause. Or is the evidence there, but suppressed by a decades-long global conspiracy, as I assume you believe?

Frank J · 28 March 2009

James F said: Um, FL...how does pretending that there is scientific evidence refuting common descent, natural selection, and evolution in general help kids understand science? If the winds are changing, it's toward academic fraud and breaches of the Establishment Clause. Or is the evidence there, but suppressed by a decades-long global conspiracy, as I assume you believe?

If the evidence were there for some alternative, its proponents would be so busy testing, supporting and critically analyzing it that they would have no time or reason to keep recycling the same old long-refuted "weaknesses" of "Darwinism." Instead, with every new bit of evidence, most anti-evolution activists say less about their particular alternative - even the simplest "what happened when." There are 2 simple reasons for that: (1) Every new finding makes it more ominous for any hope of a progressive OEC "theory" let alone a YEC one that would please the "masses" but which denies virtually everything in science, not just evolution. So why call attention to the fatal flaws and mutual contradictions? (2) Every new finding gives the scam artists one more thing to take out of context to make evolution look "weak" - especially to impressionable students who are not given the chance to evaluate the evidence in context.

david m brooks · 28 March 2009

It may be necessary for textbook standards committees in non-Creationist states to automatically disapprove of science textbooks approved in Texas; to limit cross-contamination.

From the AP:

Texas education board approves science standards:

By APRIL CASTRO – 22 hours ago

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — State education leaders forged a compromise Friday on the teaching of evolution in Texas, adopting a new science curriculum that no longer requires educators to teach the weaknesses of all scientific theories.

The State Board of Education voted 13-2 to put in place a plan that would instead require teachers to encourage students to scrutinize "all sides" of scientific theories, a move criticized by evolution proponents.

Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, which will be in place for the next decade, governs what teachers are required to cover in the classroom, the topics students are tested on and the material published in textbooks.

Pro-evolutionists, who wanted the State Board of Education to drop the 20-year-old requirement that both "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories be taught, said the new plan uses confusing language that allows creationist arguments to slip into Texas classrooms.

"Through a series of contradictory and convoluted amendments, the board crafted a road map that creationists will use to pressure publishers into putting phony arguments attacking established science into textbooks," said Kathy Miller, president of the watchdog group Texas Freedom Network

continued</a?

Frank J · 28 March 2009

Yet, not only are Intelligent Design proponents and Creationists opposed to scrutinizing Intelligent Design Theory and Creationism, many of them even admit that neither is a scientific explanation, and that neither was ever intended to be used in science. Yet, they insist on having either (or both) inserted into science curricula.
— Stanton

The DI is slicker than that. They never insisted that "creationism" (their definition, essentially YEC) be taught. Then they stopped insisting that ID be taught, opting for the designer-free "critical analysis" or "strengths and weaknesses" which focuses only on evolution, and specifically for the promotion of unreasonable doubt. Only after that came the startling admissions from Nelson and Johnson that ID was not yet a scientific explanation. Of course the DI never discourages any of their fans from insisting that ID, or even full-blown YEC, be taught.

That’s like a quack admitting that his snake oil panacea can’t cure anything, but is still adamant in insisting that it should be put on the market as a cure-all.
— Stanton

You can omit the like. It is a bunch of quacks admitting that their snake oil panacea can’t cure anything, but are still adamant in peddling it as a cure-all.

slpage · 29 March 2009

DavidK said: Lou Dobbs covered this story on CNN Thursday night. He was just awful; a basic interpretation of what he implied was let's give creationism a chance. There are gaps in the fossil records, there are differences, let's hear both sides. He quoted the TBE chair, but failed to mention the 50+ scientific organizations that have nixed this creationist push (or is it "pusch"). Gosh, who can argue with the religious side...

Forgive my pig latiin, but Dobbs is an ickday. Several years ago, evolution came up on his show and he sort of matter-of-factly declared that it is not science. As if he would know. This was before he finally got his dental work done, so while his lips were quivering as he spewed his goo, one had to see his gingivitis in all it's inflammatory brownish glory....

derwood · 29 March 2009

FL said:
Big Win in Texas as State Now Leads Nation in Requiring Critical Analysis of Evolution in High School Science Classes --- Robert Crowther, Evolution News and Views "Texas has sent a clear message that evolution should be taught as a scientific theory open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned," said Dr. John West, Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute. “Contrary to the claims of the evolution lobby, absolutely nothing the Board did promotes ‘creationism’ or religion in the classroom. Groups that assert otherwise are lying, plain and simple. Under the new standards, students will be expected to analyze and evaluate the scientific evidence for evolution, not religion. Period.”This is it baby. It's time for the Non-Darwinists to go all out. It's time for science education to .... "evolve." (Insert quiet "Dr. Phibes" chuckle here. You know, the one he does at the end of the movie.) FL :)

Yes, baby, mammajamma kewl - this IS it. I mean, public relations propoagandists form the Discovery Institute? You can't get a bett quality source of information! And what is even kewler - I recently had the please of an email exchange with Mr.West who contnues to lie about how it was Billy Dembski who 'predicted' function in junkDNA in 1989 - when I presented him with numerous citations form the scientific literature going back to 1975 in which real scientists were finding such functions, thus Dembski coiuld not have actaully 'predicted' anything, he first sputtered that well sure, SOME Darwinists looked into it IN SPITE OF the orthodoxy (which the cretos assure us was that all junk DNA did nothing), then he stopped replyiing to me.... Rest assured, he'll keep making the same lies.. I mean, claims... Right Mellotron?

KP · 29 March 2009

slpage said: This was before he finally got his dental work done, so while his lips were quivering as he spewed his goo, one had to see his gingivitis in all it's inflammatory brownish glory....

Would that be the same gingivitis that is caused by several species of bacteria PROVEN to have EVOLVED antibiotic resistance???????