High-school student fights to repeal Louisiana creationism law

The Louisiana Coalition for Science is assisting Zack Kopplin in this effort. PT readers can help us by contacting friends and relatives in Louisiana and asking them to contact their legislators to request support for Senator Peterson's repeal bill when it is filed. Information will be posted at Zack's website, http://www.repealcreationism.com, and the LCFS website, http://lasciencecoalition.org.

Good on Professor Zimmerman and Zack Kopplin for their quest for better quality education for everyone.

An animated and enthusiastic thumbs up and a double attaboy to Zack Kopplin for his clear though and even clearer speech. Those are traits that are worthy of such accolades as well as emulation.

Gratitude also and equally enthusiastic laurels to Professor Zimmerman who has helped Zack to be heard.

Way to go.

Now we can look forward to wading through a new incarnation of xtian persecution based upon some kind of imaginary amalgam that includes recruitment of students and collaboration by media savvy scientists in the never ending onslaught of that unholy alliance coupled with the double threat of Muslinisms and unnatural proclivities like that there and homos and like that there. Why, any real American should see the threat to entrenched pseudo-traditions.

That must make me an un-real American. If I didn't know any better, I'd probably go into a sulk and forget that there is never zero risk. In anything.

Speaking of which, Louisiana Just Printing Out Wikipedia Pages, Calling It History.

The hope is that a student interested in the truth will at least shame the vast majority of legislators who voted in that Trojan Horse in the first place. Maybe even enough to revoke it.

The one thing I can say for Louisiana beyond that on this matter is that its educational system has avoided "taking advantage of it" and making its science curricula stupid. We can't just hope that the creationists won't take advantage of this hole in the wall of separation of church and state, however.

Glen Davidson

The hope is that a student interested in the truth will at least shame the vast majority of legislators who voted in that Trojan Horse in the first place.

— Glen Davidson

It will be interesting to follow young Zack's career. (10 years from now will he be a scientist or a politician? maybe both?)

One can hope (if there is such a thing as justice) that top colleges/ universities in the region are begging Zack to attend thier schools/ offering scholarships etc. (Tulane?)

Go ZACK!

I think this isn't too off-topic: Oklahoma House panel votes down science bill. These things do get scrapped with reasonable frequency, although this is more common in Oklahoma than in Louisiana in recent years.

I do wish the people throwing this junk away would bring up liability issues more than they do. The DI and their herd of independent minds like to sell this as freedom to teach creationism (at least some on the panel realized that it could go well beyond that, even), when of course it could end up with a huge bill that has to be paid by strapped school districts.

Glen Davidson

Frank J said: I hope that he doesn't stop with shaming the legislators, but puts the Governor himself on the spot. Jindal has a biology degree from Brown (AIUI he did not take any classes taught by Ken Miller), so he must have some opinion on the what the evidence supports regarding the age of life and common descent, even if he has been fooled into what "RM + NS" can or cannot do. He is also undoubtedly aware of the "big tent" scam, in which it's not politically correct to discuss the age of life and common descent, even though some of the most notable evolution-deniers have plainly conceded that science is correct on at least those basic conclusions.

I was so pleased with Michael Zimmerman's excellent essay to the Huffington Post, that I passed the link on to a large group of people, including several involved with community organizing here in New York City. Without a doubt, Zimmerman was right to note that Zachary's ongoing effort is truly indeed a "profile in evolutionary courage".

JASONMITCHELL said: It will be interesting to follow young Zack's career. (10 years from now will he be a scientist or a politician? maybe both?) One can hope (if there is such a thing as justice) that top colleges/ universities in the region are begging Zack to attend thier schools/ offering scholarships etc. (Tulane?) Go ZACK!

Barbara Forrest said: The Louisiana Coalition for Science is assisting Zack Kopplin in this effort. PT readers can help us by contacting friends and relatives in Louisiana and asking them to contact their legislators to request support for Senator Peterson's repeal bill when it is filed. Information will be posted at Zack's website, http://www.repealcreationism.com, and the LCFS website, http://lasciencecoalition.org.

One of Jindal’s Biology professors at Brown, a geneticist, did write to him prior to Jindal’s signing of the Louisiana Science Education Act, imploring him not to sign it.

— John Kwok

Look at the legislative record - nearly unanimous approval. That's both parties, nearly every parish in the state. No sane politician would choose to buck that sort of public support and kiss off that many votes.

The question isn't whether Jindal believes in alternatives or understood the foundation of his education. The question is whether Jindal desires to be re-elected. I suppose he does.

Interesting. Like I said previously, the high-school sensation Mr. Kopplin was bound to get increased publicity (and puffing) among the evolution-friendly media outlets.

Naturally, good ole Huff-Po would be in the mood to publish about him, and atheist Michael Zimmerman would be in the mood to puff about him.

Being in high school, he IS pretty much "an AA battery in a megawatt world", but he's got Passion, he's got (or far more likey, has been given by an adult evo) a marketing Plan-- "kids, clergy, businesses"--and now he's got national-level Puffery.

And honestly that can be a VERY valuable combination (Passion, Plan, Puffery) for any little AA battery. The fact is, in exchange for his PR evolution-marketing services as a high-school David-vs-Goliath poster boy, Mr. Kopplin may indeed find fame, fortune, and big scholarships to big schools.

In return, of course, the big-name evolutionists who so clearly ran out of gas regarding Louisiana, get some free media time (and free media sniping) that they wouldn't otherwise get.
So, how can non-Darwinists counter this interesting little AA battery?

So, honestly, it's not enough to merely ASSERT, " he's an AA battery in megawatt world."

Instead, such a claim has to be DEMONSTRATED, gently yet clearly, and full of sincere respect for a high-schooler who is found a passionate cause OTHER THAN Video Games, I-Pods, Gittin Drunk, Getting Girls Pregnant, Doing Drugs, Robbing The Kwik Shop, etc.

By focusing on the specific details of LSEA vis-a-vis Louisiana's current offering of high school biology/science textbooks, and publicly asking Mr. Kopplin (and his handlers) specific questions, it should be easy to demonstrate that LSEA fulfills a clear science and science-education need.

(Not difficult at all. Just ask some questions about the origin of life chapter in the textbook, and then point out how LSEA helps science teachers get their class up to date.)

Also, ask specific, non-technical questions aimed at Kopplin's planned targets--"kids, clergy, and businesses" again WRT the LSEA specifics, and again in the media.

Finally, the real scandal is NOT that there's a new AA battery in Evotown. The scandal is that there are so FEW young AA batteries in the Churches!!!

fL

FL said: Interesting. Like I said previously, the high-school sensation Mr. Kopplin was bound to get increased publicity (and puffing) among the evolution-friendly media outlets. Naturally, good ole Huff-Po would be in the mood to publish about him, and atheist Michael Zimmerman would be in the mood to puff about him. Being in high school, he IS pretty much "an AA battery in a megawatt world", but he's got Passion, he's got (or far more likey, has been given by an adult evo) a marketing Plan-- "kids, clergy, businesses"--and now he's got national-level Puffery. And honestly that can be a VERY valuable combination (Passion, Plan, Puffery) for any little AA battery. The fact is, in exchange for his PR evolution-marketing services as a high-school David-vs-Goliath poster boy, Mr. Kopplin may indeed find fame, fortune, and big scholarships to big schools. In return, of course, the big-name evolutionists who so clearly ran out of gas regarding Louisiana, get some free media time (and free media sniping) that they wouldn't otherwise get. So, how can non-Darwinists counter this interesting little AA battery? So, honestly, it's not enough to merely ASSERT, " he's an AA battery in megawatt world." Instead, such a claim has to be DEMONSTRATED, gently yet clearly, and full of sincere respect for a high-schooler who is found a passionate cause OTHER THAN Video Games, I-Pods, Gittin Drunk, Getting Girls Pregnant, Doing Drugs, Robbing The Kwik Shop, etc. By focusing on the specific details of LSEA vis-a-vis Louisiana's current offering of high school biology/science textbooks, and publicly asking Mr. Kopplin (and his handlers) specific questions, it should be easy to demonstrate that LSEA fulfills a clear science and science-education need. (Not difficult at all. Just ask some questions about the origin of life chapter in the textbook, and then point out how LSEA helps science teachers get their class up to date.) Also, ask specific, non-technical questions aimed at Kopplin's planned targets--"kids, clergy, and businesses" again WRT the LSEA specifics, and again in the media. Finally, the real scandal is NOT that there's a new AA battery in Evotown. The scandal is that there are so FEW young AA batteries in the Churches!!! fL

Glen Davidson said: I think this isn't too off-topic: Oklahoma House panel votes down science bill. These things do get scrapped with reasonable frequency, although this is more common in Oklahoma than in Louisiana in recent years. I do wish the people throwing this junk away would bring up liability issues more than they do. The DI and their herd of independent minds like to sell this as freedom to teach creationism (at least some on the panel realized that it could go well beyond that, even), when of course it could end up with a huge bill that has to be paid by strapped school districts. Glen Davidson

John Kwok said:

JASONMITCHELL said: It will be interesting to follow young Zack's career. (10 years from now will he be a scientist or a politician? maybe both?) One can hope (if there is such a thing as justice) that top colleges/ universities in the region are begging Zack to attend thier schools/ offering scholarships etc. (Tulane?) Go ZACK!

I hope he has his sights set on the East Coast, especially the Ivy League. Would love to hear that he has applied to Brown, that Brown makes an offer admission, and that he accepts it (And oh yes, I admit I am quite biased about this!).

FL said: Finally, the real scandal is NOT that there's a new AA battery in Evotown. The scandal is that there are so FEW young AA batteries in the Churches!!! fL

In fact, why is it that creationists cannot seem to find even one intelligent, articulate individual with some passing knowledge of science in order to make their case? Why is it that they cannot seem to find even one competent researcher, or even one competent mathematician for that matter? Why is it that even one single high school student can outshine all creationists of any age? Why is that do you think?

You didn't answer the question FL. No matter what you think of the high school kid, why ain't you got no real scientists on your side? Why ain't they got no real publications in no real journals? Why can't they convince nobody of nothin? Why can even a high school student match your pathetic level of detail? Why?

FL said:

In fact, why is it that creationists cannot seem to find even one intelligent, articulate individual with some passing knowledge of science in order to make their case? Why is it that they cannot seem to find even one competent researcher, or even one competent mathematician for that matter? Why is it that even one single high school student can outshine all creationists of any age? Why is that do you think?

You might be overstating the case there DS...as in exponentially overstating.. The fact is that Mr. Kopplin is making a bit of a splash because of his PR media-marketing value as a passionate high-schooler--NOT because he's found any actual new arguments with which to refute any points concerning the appropriateness of te LSEA law. In terms of specific LSEA discussion, Kopplin's as stuck, as completely bereft of rational anti-SEA ammo, as his grown-up evo-handlers. Not dissing him, but that's the truth. Also he has no ammo for clergy (take it from a clergy guy). His value is therefore PR-based, media-based, not science-based or religion-based, and that's how atheist Zimmerman and NCSE et al are playing it. Youth sells. But the fact is that the non-Darwinist Christians need to work on grooming their own PR high-school poster boys too, because people DO pay attention to media imagery and marketing, period. The same three demographics that ole Zimm mentioned, are THE vital demographics for Christians and all those who understand the value of LSEA. So the Christian media marketing has to get activated sooner or later. FL

DS said: You didn't answer the question FL. No matter what you think of the high school kid, why ain't you got no real scientists on your side? Why ain't they got no real publications in no real journals? Why can't they convince nobody of nothin? Why can even a high school student match your pathetic level of detail? Why?

ben said:

John Kwok said:

JASONMITCHELL said: It will be interesting to follow young Zack's career. (10 years from now will he be a scientist or a politician? maybe both?) One can hope (if there is such a thing as justice) that top colleges/ universities in the region are begging Zack to attend thier schools/ offering scholarships etc. (Tulane?) Go ZACK!

I hope he has his sights set on the East Coast, especially the Ivy League. Would love to hear that he has applied to Brown, that Brown makes an offer admission, and that he accepts it (And oh yes, I admit I am quite biased about this!).

I knew it. As soon as I read the story about Zack Kopplin, I said to myself, "this whole thing must somehow really be about John Kwok; I just can't put my finger on it." Thanks for nailing it for us John.

DS said:

FL said: Finally, the real scandal is NOT that there's a new AA battery in Evotown. The scandal is that there are so FEW young AA batteries in the Churches!!! fL

I absolutely agree. In fact, why is it that creationists cannot seem to find even one intelligent, articulate individual with some passing knowledge of science in order to make their case? Why is it that they cannot seem to find even one competent researcher, or even one competent mathematician for that matter? Why is it that even one single high school student can outshine all creationists of any age? Why is that do you think? If nothing else, Zach is a shining example of the kind of bright young mind that creationists want to illegally rob of a science education by substituting religious indoctrination. Some students will always be s smart enough to see right through that nonsense. Then what are you going to do when you piss of the intelligent and educated segment of the population? Jindal has one chance to make this right. If he doesn't he will lose a lot more than votes.

Please stop feeding the FL troll; the discussion would be tedious even if we had not heard it all before. As for Mr. Kwok, I will allow no more references to Brown University, Star Trek, idiot borg drones, or Stuyvesant High School.

FL said:

In fact, why is it that creationists cannot seem to find even one intelligent, articulate individual with some passing knowledge of science in order to make their case? Why is it that they cannot seem to find even one competent researcher, or even one competent mathematician for that matter? Why is it that even one single high school student can outshine all creationists of any age? Why is that do you think?

You might be overstating the case there DS...as in exponentially overstating..

The same three demographics that ole Zimm mentioned, are THE vital demographics for Christians and all those who understand the value of LSEA. So the Christian media marketing has to get activated sooner or later. FL

Matt Young said: Please stop feeding the FL troll; the discussion would be tedious even if we had not heard it all before. As for Mr. Kwok, I will allow no more references to Brown University, Star Trek, idiot borg drones, or Stuyvesant High School.

Matt Young said: Please stop feeding the FL troll; the discussion would be tedious even if we had not heard it all before. As for Mr. Kwok, I will allow no more references to Brown University, Star Trek, idiot borg drones, or Stuyvesant High School.

Matt Young said: Please stop feeding the FL troll; the discussion would be tedious even if we had not heard it all before. As for Mr. Kwok, I will allow no more references to Brown University, Star Trek, idiot borg drones, or Stuyvesant High School.

Matt Young said: Please stop feeding the FL troll; the discussion would be tedious even if we had not heard it all before. As for Mr. Kwok, I will allow no more references to Brown University, Star Trek, idiot borg drones, or Stuyvesant High School.

No matter what you think of the high school kid, why ain’t you got no real scientists on your side?

Why can even a high school student match your pathetic level of detail?

mrg said:

Matt Young said: Please stop feeding the FL troll; the discussion would be tedious even if we had not heard it all before. As for Mr. Kwok, I will allow no more references to Brown University, Star Trek, idiot borg drones, or Stuyvesant High School.

But "mendacious intellectual pornography" is OK, I take it.

But “mendacious intellectual pornography” is OK, I take it.

It’s a most apt term for “scientific creationism”, especially of the Intelligent Design flavor, but Matt detests it.

FL said:

In fact, why is it that creationists cannot seem to find even one intelligent, articulate individual with some passing knowledge of science in order to make their case? Why is it that they cannot seem to find even one competent researcher, or even one competent mathematician for that matter? Why is it that even one single high school student can outshine all creationists of any age? Why is that do you think?

You might be overstating the case there DS...as in exponentially overstating.. The fact is that Mr. Kopplin is making a bit of a splash because of his PR media-marketing value as a passionate high-schooler--NOT because he's found any actual new arguments with which to refute any points concerning the appropriateness of te LSEA law. In terms of specific LSEA discussion, Kopplin's as stuck, as completely bereft of rational anti-SEA ammo, as his grown-up evo-handlers. Not dissing him, but that's the truth. Also he has no ammo for clergy (take it from a clergy guy). His value is therefore PR-based, media-based, not science-based or religion-based, and that's how atheist Zimmerman and NCSE et al are playing it. Youth sells. But the fact is that the non-Darwinist Christians need to work on grooming their own PR high-school poster boys too, because people DO pay attention to media imagery and marketing, period. The same three demographics that ole Zimm mentioned, are THE vital demographics for Christians and all those who understand the value of LSEA. So the Christian media marketing has to get activated sooner or later. FL

I like that Zack is focusing on "kids, clergy and businesses" by pointing out to conservatives and moderates that LESA is not in their best interests and (hopefully) voters will act appropriately.

Hey voters - not only is this not good for education - it can hurt your pocketbook!, Hey all you voters who are Catholics & any other flavor of Christian but born again fundamentalists - someone is trying to indoctrinate YOUR KIDS into a different religion than yours! Hey Kids someone is trying to manipulate you- don't let them get away with it!

By repealing LESA, the charade of "teach the controversy" and "academic freedom" as ways of smuggling preaching into teaching will suffer a major setback.

FL you're just P.O.ed because a high school student is a AA battery and you're an empty AAA.

Sorry I don usually troll bash but the target was too tempting

someone who shall remain nameless commented that:
"The fact is that Mr. Kopplin is making a bit of a splash because of his PR media-marketing value as a passionate high-schooler–NOT because he’s found any actual new arguments with which to refute any points concerning the appropriateness of te LSEA law.

...

His value is therefore PR-based, media-based, not science-based or religion-based"

I'm OK with is. His value IS as a honest voice as someone "in the trenches" - actually OF the group most likely to be impacted by creationism in the classroom, a high school student- he isn't claiming unique scientific knowledge as his argument against LSEA/Creationism/ID (Thousands of PH.D.'s have done that adequately) or as a religious expert (Pope John Paul II, the clergy project covered that angle) or even as a legal expert- he's not pretending to be anything he's not. This is a battle for "hearts and minds" PR is a tool that the side of reason has not used effectively in the past -- I applaud Zack's efforts - the criticisms of commenter who I refuse to name boil down to "Hey ALL MY SIDE HAS is PR and a high school student is DOING IT BETTER THAN OUR PROFESSIONALS - NO FAIR!"

hurts don't it?

Matt Young said:

But “mendacious intellectual pornography” is OK, I take it.

1000 apologies! I forgot that one.

It’s a most apt term for “scientific creationism”, especially of the Intelligent Design flavor, but Matt detests it.

It seemed clever the first several dozen times you used it ....

Mary H said: FL you're just P.O.ed because a high school student is a AA battery and you're an empty AAA. Sorry I don usually troll bash but the target was too tempting

John Kwok said:

Frank J said: I hope that he doesn't stop with shaming the legislators, but puts the Governor himself on the spot. Jindal has a biology degree from Brown (AIUI he did not take any classes taught by Ken Miller), so he must have some opinion on the what the evidence supports regarding the age of life and common descent, even if he has been fooled into what "RM + NS" can or cannot do. He is also undoubtedly aware of the "big tent" scam, in which it's not politically correct to discuss the age of life and common descent, even though some of the most notable evolution-deniers have plainly conceded that science is correct on at least those basic conclusions.

One of Jindal's Biology professors at Brown, a geneticist, did write to him prior to Jindal's signing of the Louisiana Science Education Act, imploring him not to sign it (And yes, Ken Miller did check and saw that Jindal was never a student of his. Jindal did well enough to earn a Rhodes Scholarship to Cambridge if my memory is correct.).

Hey, are we still commenting on FL when Matt said not to?

FL said: Hey, are we still commenting on FL when Matt said not to?

As for Mr. Kwok, I will allow no more references to Brown University, Star Trek, idiot borg drones, or Stuyvesant High School.

Mary H said: Sorry I don't usually troll bash but the target was too tempting.

JASONMITCHELL said: -- I applaud Zack's efforts - the criticisms of commenter who I refuse to name boil down to "Hey ALL MY SIDE HAS is PR and a high school student is DOING IT BETTER THAN OUR PROFESSIONALS - NO FAIR!" hurts don't it?

Mike Elzinga said:

JASONMITCHELL said: -- I applaud Zack's efforts - the criticisms of commenter who I refuse to name boil down to "Hey ALL MY SIDE HAS is PR and a high school student is DOING IT BETTER THAN OUR PROFESSIONALS - NO FAIR!" hurts don't it?

Those kinds of cult members are little different from pedophiles being upset when a young person gets away from them and turns them in. The anger of the cult stalker comes out in the form of sneering and taunting; and we know damned well it hurts them when young people see right through them. In the cultist’s world, that’s not supposed to happen. Cult members troll for damaged and immature personalities too young and too inexperienced to understand the nasty psychological games of cults.

John Kwok said: One of Jindal's Biology professors at Brown, a geneticist, did write to him prior to Jindal's signing of the Louisiana Science Education Act, imploring him not to sign it...

I'm spreading the word as much as possible. If any of you have blogs, please include links to repealcreationism.com.

I would further suggest that you write all your various legislatures who may have a bill in committee and ask them to identify real (not strawman) weaknesses of evolution and why they are not listing Newton's Laws of Motion (since we KNOW they don't work in some cases). Further,take a page from Zack's book, and ask them how many jobs are there for creationist trained individuals (other than politics and preachers; the first is elected and the second means that ID and creationism are religious). See if you get an answer. Then forward the same to all the papers in your area.

SLC said:

John Kwok said:

Frank J said: I hope that he doesn't stop with shaming the legislators, but puts the Governor himself on the spot. Jindal has a biology degree from Brown (AIUI he did not take any classes taught by Ken Miller), so he must have some opinion on the what the evidence supports regarding the age of life and common descent, even if he has been fooled into what "RM + NS" can or cannot do. He is also undoubtedly aware of the "big tent" scam, in which it's not politically correct to discuss the age of life and common descent, even though some of the most notable evolution-deniers have plainly conceded that science is correct on at least those basic conclusions.

One of Jindal's Biology professors at Brown, a geneticist, did write to him prior to Jindal's signing of the Louisiana Science Education Act, imploring him not to sign it (And yes, Ken Miller did check and saw that Jindal was never a student of his. Jindal did well enough to earn a Rhodes Scholarship to Cambridge if my memory is correct.).

Just so Mr. Kwok doesn't feel too bad about political hack Jindel being a Brown alumnus, Duane Gish and Jonathan Wells are PhD graduates of my old school, UC Berkeley.

First and foremost in the minds of people like Jindal and other states' legislators and governors is reelection. To that end they'll preach to the more numerous voting choir before the scientific establishment, i.e., religion trumps science at the polls. Students are obviously pawns to them, dispensible if you will. Scientists must gain the ear of their legislators in matters such as this.

Matt G said:

John Kwok said: One of Jindal's Biology professors at Brown, a geneticist, did write to him prior to Jindal's signing of the Louisiana Science Education Act, imploring him not to sign it...

So Jindal encountered a Brownian motion, and failed to be moved by it?

Karen S. said:

As for Mr. Kwok, I will allow no more references to Brown University, Star Trek, idiot borg drones, or Stuyvesant High School.

Hey, lighten up please. At least John is on the side of science.

DavidK said: First and foremost in the minds of people like Jindal and other states' legislators and governors is reelection. To that end they'll preach to the more numerous voting choir before the scientific establishment, i.e., religion trumps science at the polls. Students are obviously pawns to them, dispensible if you will. Scientists must gain the ear of their legislators in matters such as this.

Mike Elzinga said: Cult members troll for damaged and immature personalities too young and too inexperienced to understand the nasty psychological games of cults.

DavidK said: First and foremost in the minds of people like Jindal and other states' legislators and governors is reelection. To that end they'll preach to the more numerous voting choir before the scientific establishment, i.e., religion trumps science at the polls. Students are obviously pawns to them, dispensible if you will. Scientists must gain the ear of their legislators in matters such as this.

Paul Burnett said:

Mike Elzinga said: Cult members troll for damaged and immature personalities too young and too inexperienced to understand the nasty psychological games of cults.

Some say that's how they got Jindal to go along with the scam.

John Kwok said:

Paul Burnett said:

Mike Elzinga said: Cult members troll for damaged and immature personalities too young and too inexperienced to understand the nasty psychological games of cults.

Some say that's how they got Jindal to go along with the scam.

Not so, Paul. If my memory is correct, he campaigned for the LA governorship pledging that he would sign a law allowing for Intelligent Design to be taught in science classrooms. Ironically he was a honors Biology concentrator at Brown, but never once took a biology course there in which evolution was emphasized as the single unifying theory of evolution (Or if it was, then it was only mentioned casually as such.).

John Kwok said:

SLC said:

John Kwok said:

Frank J said: I hope that he doesn't stop with shaming the legislators, but puts the Governor himself on the spot. Jindal has a biology degree from Brown (AIUI he did not take any classes taught by Ken Miller), so he must have some opinion on the what the evidence supports regarding the age of life and common descent, even if he has been fooled into what "RM + NS" can or cannot do. He is also undoubtedly aware of the "big tent" scam, in which it's not politically correct to discuss the age of life and common descent, even though some of the most notable evolution-deniers have plainly conceded that science is correct on at least those basic conclusions.

One of Jindal's Biology professors at Brown, a geneticist, did write to him prior to Jindal's signing of the Louisiana Science Education Act, imploring him not to sign it (And yes, Ken Miller did check and saw that Jindal was never a student of his. Jindal did well enough to earn a Rhodes Scholarship to Cambridge if my memory is correct.).

Just so Mr. Kwok doesn't feel too bad about political hack Jindel being a Brown alumnus, Duane Gish and Jonathan Wells are PhD graduates of my old school, UC Berkeley.

Unfortunately SLC, there is a triple dose of ID creationist infamy here, when there are three prominent Brunonians who are "notable" Intelligent Design advocates: 1) ex-Watergate Plumber Charles "Chuck" (I found Jeezus) Colson 2) David "Why I'm Proud to Be a REAL JEW" (aka Darwin was responsible for Hitler) Klinghoffer 3) Bobby "Rhodes Scholar" Biology concentrator extraordinaire Jindal Am just delighted that arrayed against these mental defectives are fellow Brunonians Ken Miller and Jason Rosenhouse. So thanks for your concern SLC, but I'm not losing any sleep over Colson, Klinghoffer and Jindal.

SLC said:

John Kwok said:

SLC said:

John Kwok said:

Frank J said: I hope that he doesn't stop with shaming the legislators, but puts the Governor himself on the spot. Jindal has a biology degree from Brown (AIUI he did not take any classes taught by Ken Miller), so he must have some opinion on the what the evidence supports regarding the age of life and common descent, even if he has been fooled into what "RM + NS" can or cannot do. He is also undoubtedly aware of the "big tent" scam, in which it's not politically correct to discuss the age of life and common descent, even though some of the most notable evolution-deniers have plainly conceded that science is correct on at least those basic conclusions.

One of Jindal's Biology professors at Brown, a geneticist, did write to him prior to Jindal's signing of the Louisiana Science Education Act, imploring him not to sign it (And yes, Ken Miller did check and saw that Jindal was never a student of his. Jindal did well enough to earn a Rhodes Scholarship to Cambridge if my memory is correct.).

Just so Mr. Kwok doesn't feel too bad about political hack Jindel being a Brown alumnus, Duane Gish and Jonathan Wells are PhD graduates of my old school, UC Berkeley.

Unfortunately SLC, there is a triple dose of ID creationist infamy here, when there are three prominent Brunonians who are "notable" Intelligent Design advocates: 1) ex-Watergate Plumber Charles "Chuck" (I found Jeezus) Colson 2) David "Why I'm Proud to Be a REAL JEW" (aka Darwin was responsible for Hitler) Klinghoffer 3) Bobby "Rhodes Scholar" Biology concentrator extraordinaire Jindal Am just delighted that arrayed against these mental defectives are fellow Brunonians Ken Miller and Jason Rosenhouse. So thanks for your concern SLC, but I'm not losing any sleep over Colson, Klinghoffer and Jindal.

In fairness, Colson and Klinghoffer didn't major in science like Wells and Gish did.

John Kwok said:

SLC said:

John Kwok said:

SLC said:

John Kwok said:

Frank J said: I hope that he doesn't stop with shaming the legislators, but puts the Governor himself on the spot. Jindal has a biology degree from Brown (AIUI he did not take any classes taught by Ken Miller), so he must have some opinion on the what the evidence supports regarding the age of life and common descent, even if he has been fooled into what "RM + NS" can or cannot do. He is also undoubtedly aware of the "big tent" scam, in which it's not politically correct to discuss the age of life and common descent, even though some of the most notable evolution-deniers have plainly conceded that science is correct on at least those basic conclusions.

One of Jindal's Biology professors at Brown, a geneticist, did write to him prior to Jindal's signing of the Louisiana Science Education Act, imploring him not to sign it (And yes, Ken Miller did check and saw that Jindal was never a student of his. Jindal did well enough to earn a Rhodes Scholarship to Cambridge if my memory is correct.).

Just so Mr. Kwok doesn't feel too bad about political hack Jindel being a Brown alumnus, Duane Gish and Jonathan Wells are PhD graduates of my old school, UC Berkeley.

Unfortunately SLC, there is a triple dose of ID creationist infamy here, when there are three prominent Brunonians who are "notable" Intelligent Design advocates: 1) ex-Watergate Plumber Charles "Chuck" (I found Jeezus) Colson 2) David "Why I'm Proud to Be a REAL JEW" (aka Darwin was responsible for Hitler) Klinghoffer 3) Bobby "Rhodes Scholar" Biology concentrator extraordinaire Jindal Am just delighted that arrayed against these mental defectives are fellow Brunonians Ken Miller and Jason Rosenhouse. So thanks for your concern SLC, but I'm not losing any sleep over Colson, Klinghoffer and Jindal.

In fairness, Colson and Klinghoffer didn't major in science like Wells and Gish did.

No, I'm not giving either one any pass for not having been science concentrators. Instead, thanks to their efforts, they have been more successful in raising the profile of Intelligent Design amongst American readers than eiher Wells and Gish have done. I still think it was ridiculous for the Huffington Post to give Klinghoffer the chance to write guest commentary late last summer, in which he repeated his absurd canard that Darwin - via Darwinian thought - was a primary inspiration for Adolf Hilter to conceive of the Shoah (Jewish term for the Holocaust for those who don't already know). Thankfully someone at Slate jumped in to condemn HuffPo for its demonstration of breathtaking inanity by giving Klinghoffer an online podium to vent more of his noxious rage (I also have to commend Eric Michael Johnson of the Primate Diaries blog for voicing such stern criticism at his blog and at HuffPo too.).

SLC said:

John Kwok said:

SLC said:

John Kwok said:

SLC said:

John Kwok said:

Frank J said: I hope that he doesn't stop with shaming the legislators, but puts the Governor himself on the spot. Jindal has a biology degree from Brown (AIUI he did not take any classes taught by Ken Miller), so he must have some opinion on the what the evidence supports regarding the age of life and common descent, even if he has been fooled into what "RM + NS" can or cannot do. He is also undoubtedly aware of the "big tent" scam, in which it's not politically correct to discuss the age of life and common descent, even though some of the most notable evolution-deniers have plainly conceded that science is correct on at least those basic conclusions.

One of Jindal's Biology professors at Brown, a geneticist, did write to him prior to Jindal's signing of the Louisiana Science Education Act, imploring him not to sign it (And yes, Ken Miller did check and saw that Jindal was never a student of his. Jindal did well enough to earn a Rhodes Scholarship to Cambridge if my memory is correct.).

Just so Mr. Kwok doesn't feel too bad about political hack Jindel being a Brown alumnus, Duane Gish and Jonathan Wells are PhD graduates of my old school, UC Berkeley.

Unfortunately SLC, there is a triple dose of ID creationist infamy here, when there are three prominent Brunonians who are "notable" Intelligent Design advocates: 1) ex-Watergate Plumber Charles "Chuck" (I found Jeezus) Colson 2) David "Why I'm Proud to Be a REAL JEW" (aka Darwin was responsible for Hitler) Klinghoffer 3) Bobby "Rhodes Scholar" Biology concentrator extraordinaire Jindal Am just delighted that arrayed against these mental defectives are fellow Brunonians Ken Miller and Jason Rosenhouse. So thanks for your concern SLC, but I'm not losing any sleep over Colson, Klinghoffer and Jindal.

In fairness, Colson and Klinghoffer didn't major in science like Wells and Gish did.

No, I'm not giving either one any pass for not having been science concentrators. Instead, thanks to their efforts, they have been more successful in raising the profile of Intelligent Design amongst American readers than eiher Wells and Gish have done. I still think it was ridiculous for the Huffington Post to give Klinghoffer the chance to write guest commentary late last summer, in which he repeated his absurd canard that Darwin - via Darwinian thought - was a primary inspiration for Adolf Hilter to conceive of the Shoah (Jewish term for the Holocaust for those who don't already know). Thankfully someone at Slate jumped in to condemn HuffPo for its demonstration of breathtaking inanity by giving Klinghoffer an online podium to vent more of his noxious rage (I also have to commend Eric Michael Johnson of the Primate Diaries blog for voicing such stern criticism at his blog and at HuffPo too.).

As I believe I have stated here before, Mr. Klinghoffer should be asked to explain how he can justify associating himself with the Dishonesty Institute with its Holocaust revisionist director John West.

High school students don't vote for good reasons.
Yet if its okay for a student to have a say in this issue to influence results then why not the whole public?
You can't take the prestige of citizen involvement for your gain when your whole point is to deny public involvement in origin teaching in public schools.
Your the guys demanding non public control.
How now the active student thing.?
Thats from a climate of the little guy fighting city hall.
Your city hall.

Exactly Robert but further this begs the question of "Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?" I am sure that the evilutionists do not harbor witholdings of innocent desires or anti-desires and if they do or if they do not even it is quite clear that this student is in high school and therefore probably cannot buy alcoholic beverages and certainly could not be president of the united states and so we are come full circle to the original question. And I think we can answer if not in the affirmative, at least in the negative. And if not that either then perhaps it can serve as a witness.

Obviously, if the point of this Louisiana bill were not to clear the way for pushing sectarian dogma as "science", at taxpayer expense, in violation of the constitution...

Then FL and Byers would have no interest in it.

harold said: Obviously, if the point of this Louisiana bill were not to clear the way for pushing sectarian dogma as "science", at taxpayer expense, in violation of the constitution... Then FL and Byers would have no interest in it.

harold said: Obviously, if the point of this Louisiana bill were not to clear the way for pushing sectarian dogma as "science", at taxpayer expense, in violation of the constitution... Then FL and Byers would have no interest in it.

Paul Burnett said: Scratch an intelligent design creationist, and a creationist / religious apologist / fundagelical whacko will be revealed 99+ per cent of the time.

Here's the latest from Dishonesty Institute Minister of Propaganda Casey Luskin:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/02/lobbyists_resort_to_myth-infor044241.html

It seems as though Zack Kopplin is becoming an annoying irritant to Luskin and his fellow Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographers (Sorry Matt, I couldn't resist and IMHO that's a most apt term to describe Luskin and his fellow Dishonesty Institute "savants".). I've taken the liberty of forwarding this link to Zack himself.

John Kwok said: Here's the latest from Dishonesty Institute Minister of Propaganda Casey Luskin: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/02/lobbyists_resort_to_myth-infor044241.html It seems as though Zack Kopplin is becoming an annoying irritant to Luskin and his fellow Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographers (Sorry Matt, I couldn't resist and IMHO that's a most apt term to describe Luskin and his fellow Dishonesty Institute "savants".). I've taken the liberty of forwarding this link to Zack himself.

John Kwok said: Here's the latest from Dishonesty Institute Minister of Propaganda Casey Luskin...

Here’s the latest from Dishonesty Institute Minister of Propaganda Casey Luskin: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/0[…]r044241.html

FL said:

Here’s the latest from Dishonesty Institute Minister of Propaganda Casey Luskin: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/0[…]r044241.html

Just read this article. It's well-written.

I just read the DI article - of course it's dribble

I don't know of anyone asserting myths 1 -6
"myth" 7 is just fact (but not his description of it

- but it gets WORSE - read the comments from "Jason the Free Thinker" - the law isn't to allow sneaking creationism into the classroom - it's to prevents science teacher from preaching the religion of "Darwinism"

Instead, please help make sure that Professor Zimmerman’s article gets the widest possible readership.

I've long wondered in a confused fashion exactly what would happen if somebody, impossible as it sounds, came up with a scheme to push creationism in public schools that passed the Lemon test. Just a hypothetical, mind you.

At that point, every university worthy of the name would stop accepting science credits from high schools pushing such courses, and insist that the freshmen take remedial courses. At this point, things will happen, I'm not entirely sure what, but they won't be pretty.

mrg said: I've long wondered in a confused fashion exactly what would happen if somebody, impossible as it sounds, came up with a scheme to push creationism in public schools that passed the Lemon test. Just a hypothetical, mind you. At that point, every university worthy of the name would stop accepting science credits from high schools pushing such courses, and insist that the freshmen take remedial courses. At this point, things will happen, I'm not entirely sure what, but they won't be pretty.

So the bill doesn't allow for ID or creationism or religion to be taught in science class. Right. Then why do you care DIshonesty Institute? You do know that every real scientist already has the absolute right to question every scientific theory, right? You do know that that is exactly how the modern theory of evolution was developed, right? You do know that everyone can see that you are just being disingenuous liars, right? Just keep yipping and yapping like a pack of crazed puppies. No one will ever be fooled by your nonsense, not even a high school student.

Or you could get in the lab and actually do some science instead of pissing and moaning. You see, no legislation will ever change reality. The science will still support evolution, no matter what any shady politician tries to pull. That your real problem. Deal with it.

It is illegal and unconstitutional to teach creationism as science in this country, period. Passing illegal legislation will not change that. The lawsuits will still be filed and you will still lose. Lying about your intentions isn't going to help.

"Our goal is to get creationism taught as science in public schools. This legislation will absolutely not do that. That is why we are behind it one hundred percent."

A simpler question:

If this law is supposed to improve education in Louisiana, how come it is not?

DS said: So the bill doesn't allow for ID or creationism or religion to be taught in science class. Right. Then why do you care DIshonesty Institute? You do know that every real scientist already has the absolute right to question every scientific theory, right? You do know that that is exactly how the modern theory of evolution was developed, right? You do know that everyone can see that you are just being disingenuous liars, right? Just keep yipping and yapping like a pack of crazed puppies. No one will ever be fooled by your nonsense, not even a high school student. Or you could get in the lab and actually do some science instead of pissing and moaning. You see, no legislation will ever change reality. The science will still support evolution, no matter what any shady politician tries to pull. That your real problem. Deal with it. It is illegal and unconstitutional to teach creationism as science in this country, period. Passing illegal legislation will not change that. The lawsuits will still be filed and you will still lose. Lying about your intentions isn't going to help. "Our goal is to get creationism taught as science in public schools. This legislation will absolutely not do that. That is why we are behind it one hundred percent."

JASONMITCHELL said: OK you got me - I cannot figure out how a creationism curriculum could pass the lemon test - even hypothetically.

mrg said: I’ve long wondered in a confused fashion exactly what would happen if somebody, impossible as it sounds, came up with a scheme to push creationism in public schools that passed the Lemon test. Just a hypothetical, mind you. At that point, every university worthy of the name would stop accepting science credits from high schools pushing such courses, and insist that the freshmen take remedial courses. At this point, things will happen, I’m not entirely sure what, but they won’t be pretty.

rossum said: We can get some idea of what might happen from the kerfuffle over ACSI et al. v. Stearns et al. in California, where a group of private schools did the same thing. The universities reacted by not accepting biology credits from those schools and the Universities won in court. The Universities are allowed to set their own entry criteria.

FL said: I will be checking Mr. Kopplin's blog regularly to see if he is able to provide any sort of specific refutation (doing his own homework, that is.)

Mike Elzinga said: You have no clue.

J. Biggs said: It's funny you mention that. The author of SB 554 here in Oklahoma made it clear that hisacademic freedom bill is all about teaching Creationism in science class.

J. Biggs said: It's funnt you mention that. The author of SB 554 here in Oklahoma made it clear that hisacademic freedom bill is all about teaching Creationism in science class.

mrg said: I've long wondered in a confused fashion exactly what would happen if somebody, impossible as it sounds, came up with a scheme to push creationism in public schools that passed the Lemon test. Just a hypothetical, mind you.

Shebardigan said: Recent events have eroded this supposition.

Mike Elzinga said:

J. Biggs said: It's funny you mention that. The author of SB 554 here in Oklahoma made it clear that hisacademic freedom bill is all about teaching Creationism in science class.

Sheesh! After reading that, I would wear a bullet proof vest around Brecheen. Who knows what that whack job would do? And what does it say about the people he duped into electing him? But he really got mauled in the comments to his rant.

mrg said: I've long wondered in a confused fashion exactly what would happen if somebody, impossible as it sounds, came up with a scheme to push creationism in public schools that passed the Lemon test. Just a hypothetical, mind you. At that point, every university worthy of the name would stop accepting science credits from high schools pushing such courses, and insist that the freshmen take remedial courses. At this point, things will happen, I'm not entirely sure what, but they won't be pretty.

Paul Burnett said:

John Kwok said: Here's the latest from Dishonesty Institute Minister of Propaganda Casey Luskin...

Robert Crowther is the Dishonesty Institute's Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda, er, "Director of Communications." Casey "Attack Mouse" Luskin is merely the "Program Officer, Public Policy & Legal Affairs, Center for Science and Culture."

FL said: I will be checking Mr. Kopplin's blog regularly to see if he is able to provide any sort of specific refutation (doing his own homework, that is.)

John Kwok said:

Paul Burnett said:

John Kwok said: Here's the latest from Dishonesty Institute Minister of Propaganda Casey Luskin...

Robert Crowther is the Dishonesty Institute's Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda, er, "Director of Communications." Casey "Attack Mouse" Luskin is merely the "Program Officer, Public Policy & Legal Affairs, Center for Science and Culture."

You could have fooled me. Since it is Luskin who makes all those TV appearances - when he's not secretly rehearsing as a backup guitarist for the Katy Perry Band - then he is the de facto Dishonesty Institute Minister of Propaganda. But I will concede that Luskin isn't the Joseph Goebbels of the Intelligent Design movement; that dubious distinction is of course, my "pal" Dembski's.

Zack Kopplin is the very definition of bravery. Going against a moronic legislature, a moronic state law, and just plain morons of the FL RB ilk, he needs support.

E.M. Forster said, and I strongly concur: "If I should ever be faced with the choice of betrying my country, or betraying my friend, I hope to God I should have the courage to betray my country." Courage you see is standing against power, for what is right. Kind of like Zack is doing.

This is addressed to the cowardly FL and RB.

Zack will reply when he’s ready. He’s aware of Luskin’s latest pathetic bleating of breathtaking inanity, but he’s waiting for a more opportune moment which he thinks - and I trust his judgement - will be forthcoming. Beyond that, I can’t say more.

E.M. Forster said, and I strongly concur: “If I should ever be faced with the choice of betraying my country, or betraying my friend, I hope to God I should have the courage to betray my country.” Courage you see is standing against power, for what is right. Kind of like Zack is doing.

This is addressed to the cowardly FL and RB.

robert van bakel said: Zack Kopplin is the very definition of bravery. Going against a moronic legislature, a moronic state law, and just plain morons of the FL RB ilk, he needs support. E.M. Forster said, and I strongly concur: "If I should ever be faced with the choice of betrying my country, or betraying my friend, I hope to God I should have the courage to betray my country." Courage you see is standing against power, for what is right. Kind of like Zack is doing. This is addressed to the cowardly FL and RB.

FL said:

Zack will reply when he’s ready. He’s aware of Luskin’s latest pathetic bleating of breathtaking inanity, but he’s waiting for a more opportune moment which he thinks - and I trust his judgement - will be forthcoming. Beyond that, I can’t say more.

No problemo, John. There's honestly no rush, and it IS best to for Zack to be sure he's "ready" first before replying. Just let him know that good ole FL will be watching and maybe responding on occasion. Again, my question would be, "Will he do his OWN homework on it this time, or will he just ask Ken Miller to email a crib sheet like last time?"

FL said:

Zack will reply when he’s ready. He’s aware of Luskin’s latest pathetic bleating of breathtaking inanity, but he’s waiting for a more opportune moment which he thinks - and I trust his judgement - will be forthcoming. Beyond that, I can’t say more.

No problemo, John. There's honestly no rush, and it IS best to for Zack to be sure he's "ready" first before replying. Just let him know that good ole FL will be watching and maybe responding on occasion. Again, my question would be, "Will he do his OWN homework on it this time, or will he just ask Ken Miller to email a crib sheet like last time?"

Karen S. said:

As for Mr. Kwok, I will allow no more references to Brown University, Star Trek, idiot borg drones, or Stuyvesant High School.

Hey, lighten up please. At least John is on the side of science.

Zack, this Kansas high school science teacher is proud of you for having the backbone to stand up for real science in Louisiana. Your idealism and passion should serve as not-so-gentle prods to the rest of us! You risk rejection from your friends, local ministers preaching against you, and threats from bullies who'll try to silence you.

Students like you are one of the reasons some of us still fight the good fight. You are a blessing to your teachers.

mrg said: I've long wondered in a confused fashion exactly what would happen if somebody, impossible as it sounds, came up with a scheme to push creationism in public schools that passed the Lemon test. Just a hypothetical, mind you. At that point, every university worthy of the name would stop accepting science credits from high schools pushing such courses, and insist that the freshmen take remedial courses. At this point, things will happen, I'm not entirely sure what, but they won't be pretty.

John_S said:

mrg said: I've long wondered in a confused fashion exactly what would happen if somebody, impossible as it sounds, came up with a scheme to push creationism in public schools that passed the Lemon test. Just a hypothetical, mind you. At that point, every university worthy of the name would stop accepting science credits from high schools pushing such courses, and insist that the freshmen take remedial courses. At this point, things will happen, I'm not entirely sure what, but they won't be pretty.

Actually, something like that has already happened with regard to private schoools, which aren't subject to the establishment clause. See "Association of Christian Schools International et. al. v. Roman Stearns et. al." The "Roman Stearns et. al." is the University of California. Basically, some Christian school students sued UC for requiring remedial courses to make up for stuff that the schools skipped over for religious reasons. The students lost on summary judgment in district court before a G. W. Bush appointee, lost again on 9th circuit appeal, then were declined review by SCOTUS in 2010.

FL said: Again, my question would be, "Will he do his OWN homework on it this time, or will he just ask Ken Miller to email a crib sheet like last time?" FL

FL is just not wired to see it.

Flint said:

FL is just not wired to see it.

No, FL is wired NOT to see it. This difference is important.

Thought you’d appreciate Karen reading that someone else likes my usage of the term MIP (for which I suppose, I should be acknowledged as the one who coined it):

FL said: "Will he [Zack] do his OWN homework on it this time, or will he just ask Ken Miller to email a crib sheet like last time?" FL

Karen S. said:

Thought you’d appreciate Karen reading that someone else likes my usage of the term MIP (for which I suppose, I should be acknowledged as the one who coined it):

We all have favorite terms for our dear friends at the DI and their silly antics:
Dishonesty Institute
Dicso 'Tute
IDiots
Dumbski
Attack Mouse and no one else get hammered for using them.

Thanks to Dan Carollo who posted this at the NCSE's Facebook page, is a terse summary from Ken Miller reminding us as to what is at stake when IDiots demand that we grant them "fairness" and "Academic Freedom" to teach their religiously-derived pseudoscientific crap replete in its mendacity (Hence my rationale for coining the term MIP.). Unfortunately of course, the usual suspects (FL, Byers, etc.) won't understand Ken's rational, and quite succinct, arguments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO5us0qHcwc&feature=player_embedded

Flint said:

FL is just not wired to see it.

No, FL is wired NOT to see it. This difference is important.

I have often wondered about this ... ... Something is lacking within their brains that most other humans have that makes functioning societies possible... ...FL clearly doesn’t know what it means to know. He memorizes and mimics what he sees in the authority figures legitimized by his cult...

Ravilyn Sanders said: We need to realize it is impossible to change these people, nor would it be possible to eradicate such behavior from the society. We are fighting a behavior honed and perfected by millions of years of evolution.

Ravilyn Sanders said:

I have often wondered about this ... ... Something is lacking within their brains that most other humans have that makes functioning societies possible... ...FL clearly doesn’t know what it means to know. He memorizes and mimics what he sees in the authority figures legitimized by his cult...

I know most scientists are quite queasy about applying the lessons learnt in fitness, adaptation and survival strategies in ToE to explain the behavior of fellow human beings. For good reason too, for so much of damage to the reputation of ToE comes from quacks and racists misusing and abusing ToE to justify their bigotry. But still, what FL is doing is the classic survival strategy of doing exactly what one's parents did, as closely as possible. They survived long enough to reproduce, and if you follow their foot steps exactly, there is a very good chance you will too. After the behavior of a species has been optimized by millions of years of evolution, any deviation is likely to put the deviant individual in a less than optimum. So mimicking the parents is one of the best survival strategies found by evolution. We need to realize it is impossible to change these people, nor would it be possible to eradicate such behavior from the society. We are fighting a behavior honed and perfected by millions of years of evolution. The best we can hope for is, to make sure they do not push the society over the edge and take us back to the dark ages, not garnish our taxes to push their religion, etc.

Ravilyn Sanders said: But still, what FL is doing is the classic survival strategy of doing exactly what one's parents did, as closely as possible. They survived long enough to reproduce, and if you follow their foot steps exactly, there is a very good chance you will too. After the behavior of a species has been optimized by millions of years of evolution, any deviation is likely to put the deviant individual in a less than optimum. So mimicking the parents is one of the best survival strategies found by evolution.

What difference would that make to the validity of his argument?

FL said: That sort of thing can get a Darwinist grasshopper in trouble, you know. That's why the bigger names, the old pros, are rushing to his aid. FL

Karen S. said: We all have favorite terms for our dear friends at the DI and their silly antics:
Dishonesty Institute
Dicso 'Tute
IDiots
Dumbski
Attack Mouse and no one else get hammered for using them.

Of course, FL is quote correct. Reality IS incompatible with FL's religion. But Christianity in general is not incompatible with reality, only certain fringe sects. And Zack probably recognizes the political incorrectness of isolating those fringe sects and admitting that reality is inconsistent with them.

But notice how FL equates his particular lunacy with Christianity and indeed religion, in general. As though his faith were normal and rational. The solution is easy (and indeed, the majority of believers in nearly all religions have noticed this) - do not take morality parables as literal natural history. This is not only STUPID, but it's nowhere near what the authors of those tales intended.

There is no problem here for anyone sane. Sanity, however is what's causing FL and those like him to froth at the mouth. They simply cannot tolerate the stuff.

FL said:

Zack will reply when he’s ready. He’s aware of Luskin’s latest pathetic bleating of breathtaking inanity, but he’s waiting for a more opportune moment which he thinks - and I trust his judgement - will be forthcoming. Beyond that, I can’t say more.

No problemo, John. There's honestly no rush, and it IS best to for Zack to be sure he's "ready" first before replying. Just let him know that good ole FL will be watching and maybe responding on occasion. Again, my question would be, "Will he do his OWN homework on it this time, or will he just ask Ken Miller to email a crib sheet like last time?" ***

E.M. Forster said, and I strongly concur: “If I should ever be faced with the choice of betraying my country, or betraying my friend, I hope to God I should have the courage to betray my country.” Courage you see is standing against power, for what is right. Kind of like Zack is doing.

Hmm. Gotta love that David-Vs-Goliath PR stuff. Like I said earlier, Mr. Kopplin's appeal is in terms of media marketing, a D-versus-G poster boy to help sell the religion of evolution. (Again, no disrespect to the young man, I'm just calling it like I see it.) Regarding the Forster quotation, I was briefly tempted to fall into mischief, and maybe ask if Zack was likewise "betraying his country" (or at least his country's science education, yes?). But nahhhh, let's be nice. No mischief today!

This is addressed to the cowardly FL and RB.

Ah yes, the evil ones. Well, all the same, thanks for your post Robert! FL

Malchus said: Floyd, you may be waiting a while. Remember: you're irrelevant. No one actually cares what you think on this point, since you are an uninformed, dishonest nobody. You will be waiting forever.

FL said:

Zack will reply when he’s ready. He’s aware of Luskin’s latest pathetic bleating of breathtaking inanity, but he’s waiting for a more opportune moment which he thinks - and I trust his judgement - will be forthcoming. Beyond that, I can’t say more.

No problemo, John. There's honestly no rush, and it IS best to for Zack to be sure he's "ready" first before replying. Just let him know that good ole FL will be watching and maybe responding on occasion. Again, my question would be, "Will he do his OWN homework on it this time, or will he just ask Ken Miller to email a crib sheet like last time?" ***

E.M. Forster said, and I strongly concur: “If I should ever be faced with the choice of betraying my country, or betraying my friend, I hope to God I should have the courage to betray my country.” Courage you see is standing against power, for what is right. Kind of like Zack is doing.

Hmm. Gotta love that David-Vs-Goliath PR stuff. Like I said earlier, Mr. Kopplin's appeal is in terms of media marketing, a D-versus-G poster boy to help sell the religion of evolution. (Again, no disrespect to the young man, I'm just calling it like I see it.) Regarding the Forster quotation, I was briefly tempted to fall into mischief, and maybe ask if Zack was likewise "betraying his country" (or at least his country's science education, yes?). But nahhhh, let's be nice. No mischief today!

This is addressed to the cowardly FL and RB.

Ah yes, the evil ones. Well, all the same, thanks for your post Robert! FL

Flint said: Of course, FL is quote correct. Reality IS incompatible with FL's religion. But Christianity in general is not incompatible with reality, only certain fringe sects. And Zack probably recognizes the political incorrectness of isolating those fringe sects and admitting that reality is inconsistent with them. But notice how FL equates his particular lunacy with Christianity and indeed religion, in general. As though his faith were normal and rational. The solution is easy (and indeed, the majority of believers in nearly all religions have noticed this) - do not take morality parables as literal natural history. This is not only STUPID, but it's nowhere near what the authors of those tales intended. There is no problem here for anyone sane. Sanity, however is what's causing FL and those like him to froth at the mouth. They simply cannot tolerate the stuff.

FL said: John_S asked,

What difference would that make to the validity of his argument?

Quite a bit of difference, really. For example, on his online "fact sheet", he openly claimed that evolution is compatible with religious faith. (Remember, Zack has publicly stated that his efforts are specifically targeting religious clergy, as well as other groups.) Yet when challenged on that specific issue of "compatibility", and offered an article with five specific reasons why evolution is not compatible with the Christian faith, Zack was immediately forced to merely offer a link to NCSE's generic "religion page". That page is merely a laundry list of religious groups who merely repeated the very claim under dispute, that evolution is compatible with religious. And amazingly, a close look at some of the groups on Zack's NCSE laundry list--such as the "American Jewish Congress" and the "Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism"--show that some of the groups didn't even offer any statements on evolution's compatibility or incompatibility WRT religion at all. So Mr. Kopplin was totally at a loss on that one, he could offer nothing in response to the challenge offered to him (not even a Ken Miller pinch-hit!). Hence "the validity of his argument", as you put it, necessarily and immediately dropped to zero, on that point. And if this dramatic display of Zack's inability to support his "fact sheet" statement had taken place during a public TV debate....you get the picture. So yes, despite Zack's zeal and energy, there is a REAL validity issue going on with him. That's what his critics are getting at. Zack hasn't been timid about expressing his public denunciation of the LSEA law, but he's clearly been talking beyond his own personal ability to rationally DEFEND that talk. That sort of thing can get a Darwinist grasshopper in trouble, you know. That's why the bigger names, the old pros, are rushing to his aid. FL

Dale Husband said: Religion by nature is full of assertions. Including the assertions of the Bible you read and beleive in. So if someone asserts that he is a Christian and that he accepts the validity of evolution as a scientific theory, that's as valid as any other. And there is nothing a delusional Bible worshiper can do about that.

That comment of FL’s that you just responded to is about as creepy as the ones in which he indicated that he would kill others if the voices in his head told him to.

FL said: The correct answer, of course, is NO. There are very clear reasons for what God did, indeed for what God was FORCED to do. Anybody who's sincerely interested can simply study the following links. FL

FL said: Of course, that brings up the real issue presented by the Panda questioner: God's a Big Fat Ole Cosmic Meanie, Ain't He? The correct answer, of course, is NO. There are very clear reasons for what God did, indeed for what God was FORCED to do. Anybody who's sincerely interested can simply study the following links. (Now, if you're currently suffering from advanced-stage Demon Possession and therefore do not wish to look at the following Christian explanations, that's okay too. No pressure. Hakuna matata.) FL

14 Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: "See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones." 15 "to judge everyone, and to convict all of them of all the ungodly acts they have committed in their ungodliness, and of all the defiant words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” 16 These people are grumblers and faultfinders; they follow their own evil desires; they boast about themselves and flatter others for their own advantage.

FL said: But as for me, I am a biblical Christian, and biblical Christianity prohibits murder. FL

FL said: Hey, as long as you Panda Boys wanna bring up such issues, let's briefly take it to the next level, and then return to topic. Like Alvin Toffler said back in the Seventies, let's check out some Future Shock.

14 Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: "See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones." 15 "to judge everyone, and to convict all of them of all the ungodly acts they have committed in their ungodliness, and of all the defiant words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” 16 These people are grumblers and faultfinders; they follow their own evil desires; they boast about themselves and flatter others for their own advantage.

See, your problem ain't with me. Nope. Some of you boys better reconsider this business of giving God the middle finger. Something is coming down the track; an actual historical event on Planet Earth is being described here. Something never seen before on this planet, something that nobody's gonna blow off, not even the Darwinists. Jesus won't be coming back to do a Bake Sale, boys. Mmm-mmm baby!! FL

So, FL, how come you repeatedly fail to explain or demonstrate how this law and similar pro-Creationism laws are suppose to help educational system?

Due to the educational systems of states like Texas and Louisiana ranking as the very worst performing states in the entire country, it is obvious to all but the most moronically deluded that these laws are not helping students in any way.

Aside from helping them to become stupider.

Why is that, FL?

How is speaking ill of Zack Kopplin supposed to make you right, and not like some smarmy, yet bitter stalker?

FL said: Something is coming down the track; an actual historical event on Planet Earth is being described here. Something never seen before on this planet, something that nobody's gonna blow off, not even the Darwinists. Jesus won't be coming back to do a Bake Sale, boys. Mmm-mmm baby!! FL

How can God be “forced” to do anything?

How is speaking ill of Zack Kopplin supposed to make you right...?

FL said: That's how we can force God to do something he don't wanna do. We have the power to choose. If we choose to turn our back on God, we'll ultimately force Him to execute judgment when He wanted to execute salvation.

FL said: But he knows now, (well maybe he does, maybe not!) that he can count on careful listening and critical analysis from me. FL

You left out “cdesign proponentsists.”

Mike Elzinga said:

FL said: The correct answer, of course, is NO. There are very clear reasons for what God did, indeed for what God was FORCED to do. Anybody who's sincerely interested can simply study the following links. FL

You have absolutely no idea what you are saying with that comment; you simply cannot comprehend the stupidity of it. And you are apparently unaware of the fact that you are simply digging yourself in deeper and deeper. Your obvious hots for a chance to “debate” a high school student is creepy enough given the fact that you are incapable of grasping any concepts in science, let alone having any ability to vet those who do and those who do not know anything about science. You can’t handle coming up to the level of discourse I set for you; and you confirm your insecurity and stupidity by lusting after a high school student to “take down” in a debate. Damn you are stupid!

Karen S. said:

You left out “cdesign proponentsists.”

Yes, but that term (arguably the best!) is one the creationists themselves invented! Was it a typo, or did God have a hand in it? We'll never know.

FL said: Okay, just one more:

How is speaking ill of Zack Kopplin supposed to make you right...?

Please keep in mind that I have complimented and expressed respect for Mr. Kopplin repeatedly. I have made it clear that he is not like the run-of-the-mill, zero-motivation high schoolers. I've acknowledged that Zack is likely to succeed in things like earning a berth at one of the big colleges, possibly Ivy League. (Maybe even Ken Miller's university, as another poster suggested.) So go back and check the posts please. I have not spoken ill of him. But I (and others) have clearly pointed out where, as the high school grade cards used to say, Mr. Kopplin "Needs Improvement." Yes, I pointed out some real stuff, and it's all true You can go straight to his "fact sheet" page and see where he missed it. Let's be honest Stanton. Zack can count on plenty of back-patting and rah-rah cheerleading from you and others. But he knows now, (well maybe he does, maybe not!) that he can count on careful listening and critical analysis from me.

Mike Elzinga said: You are making that claim after what we have seen of your aversion to and ignorance of science here on PT?

They have no empathy for the feelings of others, and they don’t have any sense of right and wrong in the feedback they get from the world around them. They don’t feel the pain or sorrow of others; they don’t cry when others cry. In fact, they apparently get some pleasure out of seeing others suffering and cowed; especially those outside their sectarian religion. They require recipes for social behavior; and these recipes have to be enforced by scary authoritarian figures in their churches. Without such recipes, they would be dangerous sociopaths.

FL said: ...God gave the order to, say, wipe out the city of Jericho. Indeed, the Bible does say, "They completely destroyed everything in it - men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep, donkeys - everything." They did exactly what the God of the Bible--(the same God that Jesus spoke of)--told 'em to do.

harold said: ... that the most ostentatiously observant are often the least trustworthy people in many ways.

No one cares one bit about FL, his faith, his moral dilemas, or anything else having to do with the bible. His panties are in a bunch because one high school kid is sufficient to show every creationist up as the lying hypocrites they are. All FL can do is whine and moan and accuse the kid of being popular and needing the help of others to defend himself against people who claim that murder is wrong unless god needs you to do it, then it somehow becomes OK.

Well here is news flash for you FL. No creationist has had an original idea in over one hundred and fifty years. All the irrdeemable complexity bullshit is just Paley on a shingle. No creationist has any scientific evidence whatsoever or has even bothered to look for any in the last one hundred and fifty years. Even a high school student can see right through such blatant hypocricy.

Believe whatever you want about god ordering you to kill people. No one cares. The stated intent of the legislation will still be illegal and unconstitutional and anyone with any standing will still be able to defeat it in court. Pissing and moaning ain't gonna change that one bit.

FL the Hypocrite For Jesus said: But I (and others) have clearly pointed out where, as the high school grade cards used to say, Mr. Kopplin "Needs Improvement." Yes, I pointed out some real stuff, and it's all true You can go straight to his "fact sheet" page and see where he missed it.

Let's be honest Stanton. Zack can count on plenty of back-patting and rah-rah cheerleading from you and others. But he knows now, (well maybe he does, maybe not!) that he can count on careful listening and critical analysis from me.

PS....why do non-Christians get so antsy about the judgment texts in the Bible? If there's nothing to worry about, then none of it should make anybody upset. Right?

What I can't understand is what the evolution creation conflict really is all about.
The creation aspect comes from references of the writings in the first book of the bible being Genesis and other references to it through out the bible. What the bible does is condense the history of the formation of the Earth and the living things there on and the name creation is given to the process, it divides it into periods that being six days then the seven day of rest, the time periods are also referred to as generations, then in the new testament it said that one day is a thousand years in Gods time scale.
There is reference to quite a few species in Leviticus chapter 11 mainly to specify what should and should not be eaten by man at that time.
Because Darwin went into the subject of evolution it doesn't mean that there is no creator, even if he couldn't relate his findings to such an explanation.
In the book by Darwin called “The Origin of Species” in the chapter Laws of Variation, in the third paragraph under the heading of -A part developed in any species in an extraordinary degree or manner, in comparison with the same part in allied species, tends to be highly variable.- Darwin says:
"On the view that each species has been independently created, with all it's parts as we now see them, I can see no explanation. But on the view that groups of species have descended from other species, and have been modified through natural selection, I think we can obtain some light".
Because there has been some adaptation to different environments it doesn't mean there is no creator, if a species has adapted into another species it doesn't mean there is no creator to me it means the creator has allowed for adaptation. Because Darwin couldn't see an explanation it doesn't mean there isn't one.

In the same part of the Laws of Variation chapter in paragraph one and he talks about the opercular valves of the sessile cirripedes and how little the variation is even in a different genera, but in the several species of one genus being the Pyrgoma there is a marvelous amount of diversification. Well you could say that about the difference in eye colour and hair colour and skin colour variations in people. That could be in the variety make up of the genus of Pyrgoma. Darwin’s work was amazing he calculated brilliant things and gave us the tree of species.

Darwin talked about the aboriginal state, there has to be a starting point for anything to develop into something or stay the same. There are times I think when evolution and creation compliment each other and I think the curriculum should be allowed to let this be stated whenever applicable, evolution and creation should be allowed to work together or certain aspects and links are going to be missed that take us into the future of Earth, and beyond.

I think young students who are going to teach about life on Earth should not have to dismiss ideas and possibilities due to prejudice of sources.

The bible has played an important role in choices that have been made and how people have developed, that cannot be ignored.

M.W. said: What I can't understand ...

Stanton said:

FL the Hypocrite For Jesus said: But I (and others) have clearly pointed out where, as the high school grade cards used to say, Mr. Kopplin "Needs Improvement." Yes, I pointed out some real stuff, and it's all true You can go straight to his "fact sheet" page and see where he missed it.

He needs improvement because he does not mindlessly worship your bigoted interpretation of the Bible, that he does not use a faith in Jesus Christ to act like a bigoted ass, or that he needs improvement because he does not think Science is an evil rival pagan religion like you do, you mean.

Let's be honest Stanton. Zack can count on plenty of back-patting and rah-rah cheerleading from you and others. But he knows now, (well maybe he does, maybe not!) that he can count on careful listening and critical analysis from me.

Critical analysis from you? That's bullshit, FL, and even you know it. Anyone who thinks that you're capable of careful listening and critical analysis is a drooling idiot with an extra hole in their head. After all, you're stupid enough to think that a science classroom is a church, or that Charles Darwin is a holy text. You just want to stalk and antagonize Zack Kopplin because he is getting media attention to help improve the Louisiana educational system, rather than destroy it for Jesus.

PS....why do non-Christians get so antsy about the judgment texts in the Bible? If there's nothing to worry about, then none of it should make anybody upset. Right?

Because Christian fundamentalists always use the judgment texts in the Bible to foreshadow and justify the abuse, mistreatment and murder of non-Christians and other despised groups. Like how you always get giddy whenever you talk about how God will come down and murder all of us with Fire for "worshiping" Evolution. Furthermore, if you claim to be such a "careful listener," how come you've evaded my question of how this pro-Creationism law is supposed to help the Louisiana educational system when it is clearly harming it? Hypocriting for Jesus, much?

M.W. said: The bible has played an important role in choices that have been made and how people have developed, that cannot be ignored.

M.W., you have to be aware of several problems. Like, the problem that the Bible was never intended to be, or be used as a science textbook, or that many creationists regard Evolution(ary Biology) and the rest of Science as being some sort of rival pagan religion. Among the most important of these problems is that Creationists, particularly those supporting this law, feel that the literal interpretation of the (English translation of the) Bible is an important, if not the sole important requirement for Salvation.

And these same Creationists become mortally offended if people attempt to invoke explanations that do not boil down to "GODDIDIT." Not that they would admit it to those they perceive as evil unbelievers, of course.

M.W. said: I think young students who are going to teach about life on Earth should not have to dismiss ideas and possibilities due to prejudice of sources. The bible has played an important role in choices that have been made and how people have developed, that cannot be ignored.

I think young students who are going to teach about life on Earth should not have to dismiss ideas and possibilities due to prejudice of sources.

Flint said: Ideas studied in science classes are those developed using the scientific method - hypothesize, test, reject or accept, repeat. Ideas NOT based on the scientific method simply don't belong in science class - even if they are correct! It's not that science has "rejected" those ideas, but rather that unless and until they are supported by scientific evidence generated via the scientific method, they have not earned a place in science.

What I can’t understand is what the evolution creation conflict really is all about.

If anything, you remind me of a psycopathic IRA gunman and bomber who is one of the main protagonists in my unpublished near future alternative history post cyberpunk novel (which is set in the USA and Northern Ireland).

What critical analysis, FL?

All you've done, and all you continue to do is to criticize Zack Kopplin for not wanting to become a Moron for Jesus like you, while being a smarmy ass.

FL said:

If anything, you remind me of a psycopathic IRA gunman and bomber who is one of the main protagonists in my unpublished near future alternative history post cyberpunk novel (which is set in the USA and Northern Ireland).

Forgive me John, but I had to involuntarily chuckle at your somewhat clunky wording there. I wish you sincere success on your book of course, because in this tight economy, you'll need all the breaks you can get as a writer. However, if your fanny has got ANY intentions of breaking into Oprah's Make-Or-Break Reading Club, I sure hope your novel reads way better than the way you made it sound. Ha!! ****** Oh, and btw: I have no need to debate Zack. I merely offered a critical analysis of his weaknesses to provide an alternative to all that shallow, empty back-slapping. There is no "stalking" of Zack, but remember, my favorite hobby is to stalk you Panda Boys. Now THAT, is what makes me smile. After all, like Stanton warned ya, I'm supposedly out to make all of you my "spiritual slaves." You feel better now, John...? Mwahahahah!! FL

FL said: You feel better now, John...? Mwahahahah!! FL

Stanton said: What critical analysis, FL? All you've done, and all you continue to do is to criticize Zack Kopplin for not wanting to become a Moron for Jesus like you, while being a smarmy ass.

What I can’t understand is what the evolution creation conflict really is all about.

Is hard for me to disagree with much of the sentiment expressed regarding Mr. FL, but could we please keep the invective down to a dull roar? It adds nothing to the discussion and besides clogs my in-box.

FL said: There's no way to reconcile the clashes between them. Ultimately, you must choose one religion or the other.

FL babbled:

What I can’t understand is what the evolution creation conflict really is all about.

Well, it's like a conflict between two separate religions. Each religion is saying some major, non-negotiable core claims that absolutely CLASH with the non-negotiable core claims of the other religion.

There's no way to reconcile the clashes between them. Ultimately, you must choose one religion or the other.

Because Darwin went into the subject of evolution it doesn't mean that there is no creator, even if he couldn't relate his findings to such an explanation. … Because there has been some adaptation to different environments it doesn't mean there is no creator, if a species has adapted into another species it doesn't mean there is no creator to me it means the creator has allowed for adaptation. Because Darwin couldn't see an explanation it doesn't mean there isn't one.

The creation aspect comes from references of the writings in the first book of the bible... In the book by Darwin called “The Origin of Species” in the chapter Laws of Variation...

There are times I think when evolution and creation compliment each other and I think the curriculum should be allowed to let this be stated whenever applicable...

M. W. -

I'm not 100% sure that I understand your comment, but let me point out a few things -

1) You may be expressing the commonly held view that people can accept the scientific reality of biological evolution, yet still be Christian. Although I am not religious, I strongly agree with that, and so do most of the other pro-science people who post here, some of whom are Christian. If this is your point, then FL and the other creationists are the main adversaries of that point. FL claims that true Christians must reject the scientific understanding of life on earth.

2) Although I strongly agree that students can learn the evidence for and correctly understand biological evolution, while still being Christian (or Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan, etc), publicly funded schools are for all students, regardless of their family's religion. Science teachers cannot single out some religions as being "compatible" with science. That would imply state preference for some religions over others, thus violating the First Amendment. It is better for students to learn science in science class; they can discuss the implications of science for their particular faith at church, mosque, synagogue, etc, with parents or clergy, in the private sphere.

3) There are some religious views which are not merely scientifically untestable, but which contradict known science. Some fundamentalist interpretations of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism have this characteristic, as no doubt do some other religions. Scientology apparently includes teachings that are physically impossible. People who belong to those sects still need to understand basic science material if they want to be awarded a public high school diploma. There is no actual requirement that they "believe" it, but they must at least have a basic idea of what mainstream science currently sees as best explanations, and why. Of course, they always have the alternative of either attending a private religious school, or not attending high school at all, both of which are fairly popular alternatives.

Scott F. -

Although I am not personally religious, the only thing I would add to your excellent comment is that the Genesis creation story is either false or not intended to be taken literally.

"Biblical literalism" is usually a political stance. Something like school integration, women's equality, gay rights, or the like is opposed. Yet public sentiment threatens to allow it to occur, at least to some degree. Therefore the claim is made that the Bible commands, say, school segregation. However, the counter-argument is inevitably made that someone else interprets the Bible in a different way. At that point, the proponent of the harsher policy will almost always declare that whatever he supports is commanded by the Bible if the Bible is "taken literally".

Of course, it is actually impossible to interpret the Bible literally - it is not internally consistent enough. Furthermore, there is precious little evidence that much of it was ever intended to be "taken literally" in a modern sense. Even the most literalistic parts include things like census numbers that have clearly been rounded, and so on.

harold said: Not only is this likely to be true, but friends of mine from other, non-Christian religious traditions, in which there is a spectrum of observation and less tension between different levels, have made similar comments to me - that the most ostentatiously observant are often the least trustworthy people in many ways.

Ken Ham (arbitrary example) does not see “evolutionists” as naive fools. He undoubtedly sees them, through projection, as rival Ken Hams. He is trying to impose an arbitrary authoritarian system on other people by any means he can get away with, and that’s almost certainly how he sees science as operating as well.

These characters would be harmless were it not for the tactics of unscrupulous politicians who use them to muddy up political discourse about real and serious issues affecting everyone.

FL said:

What I can’t understand is what the evolution creation conflict really is all about.

Well, it's like a conflict between two separate religions. Each religion is saying some major, non-negotiable core claims that absolutely CLASH with the non-negotiable core claims of the other religion. There's no way to reconcile the clashes between them. Ultimately, you must choose one religion or the other. And, honestly, that is exactly what's happening here. Check it out and see what you think: http://cjonline.com/interact/blog/contra_mundum/2010-05-22/two_religions_part_two FL

Flint said: These gratuituous swipes at politicians are neither justified nor informed. I've known quite a number of these evil people personally, and they have been intelligent, well educated, aware of what the serious issues are. A constituency that cares deeply about religious matters you may regard as useless, is what elects politicians to represent them. In representing their voters, they are not being unscrupulous, and they are not muddying up political discourse. You consistently seem to view politics as "bad science" in EXACTLY the same way FL and others regard science as "bad religion". So here's a hint: good politics is not based on scientific evidence except insofar as scientific evidence can be used as one tool to reach political ends. And the ultimate political ends in Western cultures amounts to "government as broker", interpreting what the people want and attempting to provide it - EVEN IF what they want is stupid, ignorant, or (gasp!) not what YOU want.

harold said: Scott F. - Although I am not personally religious, the only thing I would add to your excellent comment is that the Genesis creation story is either false or not intended to be taken literally.

This gives a bit on the context and background of Zack Kopplin's lobbying efforts:

For Kopplins, lobbying in state Capitol will be a family affair

It does kind of fill in what's happening. I mean, how many 17 year olds could have that kind of impact?

What all of the motives are I certainly do not know. Nevertheless, it's good to see a kid who can have that sort of effect going ahead and speaking up for good science education.

Glen Davidson

FL said:

What I can’t understand is what the evolution creation conflict really is all about.

There's no way to reconcile the clashes between them.

Glen Davidson said: This gives a bit on the context and background of Zack Kopplin's lobbying efforts: For Kopplins, lobbying in state Capitol will be a family affair It does kind of fill in what's happening. I mean, how many 17 year olds could have that kind of impact? What all of the motives are I certainly do not know. Nevertheless, it's good to see a kid who can have that sort of effect going ahead and speaking up for good science education. Glen Davidson

Scott F said: ... It's that black/white problem: Salvation or Damnation. There is no middle ground, no compromise for the Fundamentalist. Science is not a means toward their salvation, therefore by their own definition Science must be a means toward their damnation. Therefore, it must be opposed at the very cost of their immortal soul and (more importantly in this case) the immortal souls of their children. Anything done to avoid damnation is acceptable, even expected. Even violating their own rules, breaking any commandment. Anything.

FL said: ...but remember, my favorite hobby is to stalk you Panda Boys. FL

John Kwok said: I don't think anyone should detract from Zack's own excellent record so far, which, I might add, is better than what I have seen from several community organizers here in New York City, the youngest of which is eight years older than he.

Mike Elzinga said: One of the peculiarities of ID/creationism is its assertions that science supports their sectarian dogma. Sample just about anything over at AiG or the ICR and the message is that science supports their dogma and not “millions of years” or “molecules to man.” Henry Morris set up this fake science when he, Duane Gish, and others founded the Institute for Creation “Research.” However, when sectarians bend and break concepts in science this badly, what they are left with has absolutely nothing to do with how the universe actually behaves. But they never respond to that observation; they merely keep reasserting their fake science.

Scott F said: It really is the The Ministry of Truth and Newspeak made manifest. If it doesn't conform to their dogma, it simply does not exist to them. They have no means within their dogma to respond, let alone recognize that there is anything to respond to. The vocabulary of their dogma doesn't even allow the concept to exist. The world inside the head of a Fundamentalist must be a really scary place to live.

Mike Elzinga said:

John Kwok said: I don't think anyone should detract from Zack's own excellent record so far, which, I might add, is better than what I have seen from several community organizers here in New York City, the youngest of which is eight years older than he.

It will be nice to see a new generation of scientifically literate kids and professionals making use of the years of accumulated knowledge at the National Center for Science Education. It was extremely difficult back in the 1970s and early 80s to know what the ID/creationists were doing nationally. They had all the secretive organizational skills and tactics already in place before members of the science community even knew what was going on. Now we have a pretty good record of most of the misconceptions of science and the political tactics they have used over the years to throw back at them. It’s extremely damning, and they can no longer get away from the stench of all that.

My Dearest FL,

I'm sure I'll regret asking this, but here goes.

If you "heard" a call from God to commit what would be considered murder or genocide, if it weren't commanded by the Almighty, how would you know that it was in fact a divine commandment?

Would you consider alternative interpretations? Could it be a hallucination? Perhaps a reaction to medication? A seizure of some sort? A particularly vivid dream? Some other "trick of the brain"? Someone using you by convincing you to commit the crimes he would like to see done, but is afraid to do himself? Wishful thinking by yourself that has manifested finally in believing you have received a message from God?

Would you even consider any of those possibilities, or would you immediately act on your Godly Orders? Would hesitating to act and considering that it might NOT be a message from God be a sin? If second thoughts are allowed, how would you make the final determination: God or hallucination?

If second thoughts are allowed, how would you make the final determination: God or hallucination?

If you “heard” a call from God to commit what would be considered murder or genocide, if it weren’t commanded by the Almighty, how would you know that it was in fact a divine commandment?

FL said: Incidentally, this method works on ALL false and lying voices, including voices that tell you that the first humans originated on Earth via evolving from a non-human "common ancestor of humans and apes." FL

See. Hermetically sealed. Internally consistent psychosis.

FL said:

If you “heard” a call from God to commit what would be considered murder or genocide, if it weren’t commanded by the Almighty, how would you know that it was in fact a divine commandment?

Good question. After all, while I don't hear any voices in my head, there ARE people who have reportedly heard voices, and thereby committed some really horrific crimes (such as convicted Oregon murderer Robert Acremant.) (That's why people need to be real careful about throwing around accusations like "hearing voices". Avoid libeling people.) But to answer your question, the best thing to do is to immediately compare whatever you allegedly "heard", with the Scriptures. Check it against the Bible, the word of God. If there's any clash between the two at all, you immediately know that what you "heard" was flat-out wrong. So any voice that tells you to murder somebody, for example, will automatically clash with the Scriptures forbidding murder, and therefore you know that what you allegedly heard, "wasn't commanded by the Almighty" as you phrased it. Therefore whatever else you chose to do (such as seeking professional help or counseling), you would NOT obey that "voice" and you would NEVER consider it to be the truth. And that's how you would settle the issue. *** Incidentally, this method works on ALL false and lying voices, including voices that tell you that the first humans originated on Earth via evolving from a non-human "common ancestor of humans and apes." FL

FL said: But to answer your question, the best thing to do is to immediately compare whatever you allegedly "heard", with the Scriptures. Check it against the Bible, the word of God.

Mike Elzinga said:

FL said: Incidentally, this method works on ALL false and lying voices, including voices that tell you that the first humans originated on Earth via evolving from a non-human "common ancestor of humans and apes." FL

Well, that is just what we have observed; the voices in your head do in fact trump all of objective reality.

Karen S. said:

If second thoughts are allowed, how would you make the final determination: God or hallucination?

If some intelligently designed bacterial flagella poofed into existence at the same time, he'd know for sure the source.

OK, case in point.

The VOICE tells you to kill politician X (who is a well-known liberal supporter of a woman's right to choose and gun control). Can you find biblical justification for that command, and would you act on it? (And can you give an example?)

How about if it's politician Y (a very conservative member of your own denomination, an abortion opponent and a sponsor of creationism bills)?
Would you be able to find biblical justification for his elimination? Would you bother looking, or just assume that that one would HAVE to be a hallucination?

And how would you look for that biblical justification, anyway? You're not going to open the book at random and find "Kill John Doe." What would amount to an unambiguous passage that could ONLY mean that YOU are specifically commanded to kill Mr. X?

Then again, how could you be SURE that the voice wasn't a deception by Satan? I bet he could even lead you to "discover" a biblical passage to justify murder, thereby eliminating an innocent child of God, and getting YOU damned to hell!

The VOICE tells you to kill politician X (who is a well-known liberal supporter of a woman’s right to choose and gun control).... How about if it’s politician Y (a very conservative member of your own denomination, an abortion opponent and a sponsor of creationism bills)?

"But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, MURDERERS, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” -- Rev. 21:8

Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man. --Gen. 9:6

FL said:

The VOICE tells you to kill politician X (who is a well-known liberal supporter of a woman’s right to choose and gun control).... How about if it’s politician Y (a very conservative member of your own denomination, an abortion opponent and a sponsor of creationism bills)?

Well, let's try out the method in both cases. The "Voice" says kill politician X and/or Y. Compare that with what the Bible says.

"But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, MURDERERS, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” -- Rev. 21:8

Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man. --Gen. 9:6

So, there you go. Not only do you NOT have a "biblical justification" for whacking X and Y, but now you've got a clear "biblical prohibition" on your hands. Disobey that prohibition, and whatever happens to you subsequently (up to and including Hell-Fire), is on YOU, not God!! Btw, notice that the Gen. 9:6 prohibition REQUIRES that the evolutionary "common ancestor" theory of human origins be flat-out wrong. God's prohibition against murder is CLEARLY based on the historical trustworthiness of the Genesis creation account of Adam and Eve (which Jesus also affirmed as well.) Let's be honest. Your current possession of the image of God cannot come from naturalistic evolution AT ALL, but instead straight from a supernatural Genesis creation by the incomparable God himself. Wouldn't you agree? *** Anyway, regardless of whatever politician the "voice" in your head tells you to murder, check all such "voices" against the Bible. If the Bible says "Don't commit murder', then the Bible is right and the "voice" is wrong. PS....there are NO biblical passages that justify murder. But you can always do what the late Jim Jones (and many evolutionists) have done---simply throw the Bible on the floor in contempt, and abandon its historical and doctrinal claims. But quite honestly, it's best not to do that. Things usually get messed-up afterwards. FL

And Floyd? This passage:

Let’s be honest. Your current possession of the image of God cannot come from naturalistic evolution AT ALL, but instead straight from a supernatural Genesis creation by the incomparable God himself. Wouldn’t you agree?"

is utterly foolish. Not to mention utterly wrong.

Mike Elzinga said:

John Kwok said: I don't think anyone should detract from Zack's own excellent record so far, which, I might add, is better than what I have seen from several community organizers here in New York City, the youngest of which is eight years older than he.

It will be nice to see a new generation of scientifically literate kids and professionals making use of the years of accumulated knowledge at the National Center for Science Education. It was extremely difficult back in the 1970s and early 80s to know what the ID/creationists were doing nationally. They had all the secretive organizational skills and tactics already in place before members of the science community even knew what was going on. Now we have a pretty good record of most of the misconceptions of science and the political tactics they have used over the years to throw back at them. It’s extremely damning, and they can no longer get away from the stench of all that.

FL,

In case you're not familiar with it (or would like to pretend it does not exist), I would direct your attention to the following:

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
Exodus 22:17-19

You don't even have to listen for a Voice! It's right there in black and white. YOU are commanded to kill all witches. There are certainly people in the world who call themselves witches, Wiccans, etc. Some even practice black masses and worship Satan. And yet YOU, FL, disobeying the clear biblical injunction to kill them, do indeed "suffer them to live."

PLEASE NOTE, I am not prompting or challenging FL to kill anyone, but pointing out his utter hypocrisy. He asserts that killing in obedience to a divine command is justified, and that he would do it without hesitation, winning points from his coreligionists for being a "Christian soldier" or something. Then he backpedals like crazy. First he has to check the command for a biblical sanction, which he now asserts cannot be found, since the Bible is all sweetness and light--none of that awful killing and stuff!

FL said: PS....why do non-Christians get so antsy about the judgment texts in the Bible? If there's nothing to worry about, then none of it should make anybody upset. Right?

For anyone who is interested (and by that, I mean seriously, not the FL and Byers mental degenerates), journalist Lauri Lebo has in the current issue of Scientific American, an excellent overview of "Academic Freedom" legislation as it has been pimped by the Dishonesty Institute and their fellow delusional creationists:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=scopes-creationism-education&page=1

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Exodus 22:17-19

FL said: So it's all pretty clear. If you or I murder that witch, it's unjustified---and you and I would be guilty of murder and subject to punishment. Hence that verse cannot justify murder. FL

FL said:

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Exodus 22:17-19

1. First and foremost, this Old Testament death penalty can only be carried out by the Israelite community under its recognized leaders. Turns out that NONE of the Old Testament death penalties are authorized to be carried out by an individual acting alone. Only the community had the authority to carry out a DP. 2. Plus, you'd need 2 or 3 witnesses MINIMUM, to even bring the matter before the community. Your own opinion by itself wouldn't work. "On the testimony of two or three witnesses a man shall be put to death, but no one shall be put to death on the testimony of only one witness." (Deut. 17:6) So it's all pretty clear. If you or I murder that witch, it's unjustified---and you and I would be guilty of murder and subject to punishment. Hence that verse cannot justify murder. FL

However, according to your doctrines, it is ok for someone to murder a doctor and go to prison as a token sacrifice for the decision to kill by members your cult.

1. First and foremost, this Old Testament death penalty can only be carried out by the Israelite community under its recognized leaders. Turns out that NONE of the Old Testament death penalties are authorized to be carried out by an individual acting alone. Only the community had the authority to carry out a DP. 2. Plus, you’d need 2 or 3 witnesses MINIMUM, to even bring the matter before the community. Your own opinion by itself wouldn’t work. “On the testimony of two or three witnesses a man shall be put to death, but no one shall be put to death on the testimony of only one witness.” (Deut. 17:6) So it’s all pretty clear. If you or I murder that witch, it’s unjustified—and you and I would be guilty of murder and subject to punishment. Hence that verse cannot justify murder.

For harold:

No claim (and certainly no evidence) has been offered that Ex. 22:17-19 is non-literal.

Nor any of the other OT death penalties, for that matter.

The verse can't be used to justify murder, but there's nothing "non-literal" about it.

FL

FL said: Hmm. An interesting doctrine. Please provide the supporting Chapter and Verse for it, from the Bible...?

FL said: Well, it's like a conflict between two separate religions.

Scott F said: In contrast, scientists today never quote Darwin's book. Darwin's book was a single scientific text that attempted to explain a certain aspect of the evidence found in the world. It was a marvel in its day, but today it is an historical artifact that belongs on a bookshelf. Science has moved on in the last 150 years. Over the last 150 years, scientists have looked at the evidence in the real world, and found lots and lots and lots more stuff that Darwin never dreamed of that supports the Theory of Evolution. We have discovered that many of the things that Darwin wrote were wrong. But we don't vilify him for that. He got it wrong because he didn't have enough evidence at the time to come to a different conclusion. We also don't demonize scientists who say that Darwin got some things wrong. Just as life evolves, our understanding of the world evolves and gets more complex over time.

There are times I think when evolution and creation compliment each other and I think the curriculum should be allowed to let this be stated whenever applicable...

Dear Scot F, Thank you for the whole of your comment. Sincere question. Would you say that "Signature In The Cell" by Stephen Meyer was evidence for evolution or creation. It being that Stephen Meyer intended it to be evidence for ID creation.

John Kwok said:

FL said: But to answer your question, the best thing to do is to immediately compare whatever you allegedly "heard", with the Scriptures. Check it against the Bible, the word of God.

So which version of the Scriptures should we rely on, O WORTHY OF GOD? The Vulgate? Eastern Orthodox? King James? If the word of GOD is so sancroscant and inerrant, then why are there quite a few notable translations, especially those which are of use to you and your fellow Xians?

M.W. said:

Scott F said: In contrast, scientists today never quote Darwin's book. Darwin's book was a single scientific text that attempted to explain a certain aspect of the evidence found in the world. It was a marvel in its day, but today it is an historical artifact that belongs on a bookshelf. Science has moved on in the last 150 years. Over the last 150 years, scientists have looked at the evidence in the real world, and found lots and lots and lots more stuff that Darwin never dreamed of that supports the Theory of Evolution. We have discovered that many of the things that Darwin wrote were wrong. But we don't vilify him for that. He got it wrong because he didn't have enough evidence at the time to come to a different conclusion. We also don't demonize scientists who say that Darwin got some things wrong. Just as life evolves, our understanding of the world evolves and gets more complex over time.

There are times I think when evolution and creation compliment each other and I think the curriculum should be allowed to let this be stated whenever applicable...

Dear Scot F, Thank you for the whole of your comment. Sincere question. Would you say that "Signature In The Cell" by Stephen Meyer was evidence for evolution or creation. It being that Stephen Meyer intended it to be evidence for ID creation.

Barbara Forrest, NCSE board member, talks about the Louisiana Science Education Act, on a video here

Karen S. said: Barbara Forrest, NCSE board member, talks about the Louisiana Science Education Act, on a video here

Karen S. said: Barbara Forrest, NCSE board member, talks about the Louisiana Science Education Act, on a video here

Mike Elzinga said:

Karen S. said: Barbara Forrest, NCSE board member, talks about the Louisiana Science Education Act, on a video here

Highly recommended! It demonstrates quite dramatically how these creationists operate. Barbara Forrest it great!

For those of you who are on Facebook, I would strongly encourage you to join Zack Kopplin's FB group, Repealing Louisiana's Creationism Law.

Am sure Zack Kopplin won't object, but for those who haven't seen it, I am reposting an editorial essay written by Zack that was published in his hometown newspaper on the day that the Louisiana Board of Education voted in favor by a vote of 8-2 to acquire the very textbooks that Zack and his grassroots campaign had been urging (This essay is currently posted on the home page of his website http://www.repealcreationism.com):

As the Louisiana Board of Education (BESE) prepares to vote today on whether to approve life science textbooks that teach proper science, including the theory of evolution, lots of confusion and misunderstanding has surfaced about the boundaries between science and faith and the role each can play in our lives.

As a senior at Baton Rouge Magnet High School, I feel strongly that BESE should immediately adopt proper science textbooks that teach evolution without any disclaimers, revisions or supplementary materials. It’s been eight years since we’ve updated our textbooks; Louisiana public school students desperately need new books that teach proper science and will prepare us for success in the global economy.

Some would like to insert the supernatural and faith-based beliefs of creationism and its offshoot, intelligent design, into public school science textbooks and classrooms. These beliefs have a proper place in church and in philosophy and religion courses, not in public school science class. Scientific theories are observable, naturalistic, testable, repeatable and falsifiable. Creationism and intelligent design do not meet these criteria. Evolution does.

I often hear evolution criticized because it is “only a theory.” The scientific meaning of the word theory is very different than the everyday use describing an unproven conjecture — like the “theory that Carl Weiss wasn’t Huey Long’s murderer.” That theory is open to debate.

In science, a theory is a well-supported group of facts that have been thoroughly tested and retested and shown to have predictive ability to explain natural phenomena. Major theories like the theory of gravity and the theory of evolution undergird entire branches of science and have helped send men to the moon and develop medicines to fight disease.

There is also talk about something called “Teaching the Controversy.” There is no controversy among scientists about evolution! This point repeatedly has been made by prominent science organizations like the American Association for the Advancement of Scientists, which contains 10 million members and has made strong statements in support of teaching evolution. Any attempts to act like there is a controversy are disingenuous.

Finally, creationists also pretend there are “flaws” in the theory of evolution. There are no flaws. In fact the National Academy of Sciences states on their website that because evidence supporting evolution is so strong, “scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred, and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution has taken place…”

For the sake of our students, I hope BESE makes the right decision and adopts textbooks our students need for success.

A long time ago (pre-Dover) I read a splendid essay against inclusion of "ID" arguments into the high school curriculum.

The basic gist was that high school science was just a small part of high school education. As such it of necessity must be a summary review of the best of present mainstream thinking in science.

Every new possibility in particle physics shouldn't be taught, nor every one of the alternate ideas in cosmogony, but only the best most meritorious mainstream thinking, like big bang cosmogony - no time for the weird, interesting stuff.

Likewise, even if "ID" were legitimate (which it is not), why introduce it to high school students when the scientific community hasn't even recognized it as the best explanation for biological diversity on Earth?

High school is not the place where the merit of different scientific ideas should be decided. ("ID" doesn't even qualify for consideration. Scientists know this, high school students do not.)

I can't find it or remember the author. I've searched my Gould, Berra, and Eldredge, to no avail.

Does any one recognize this argument? Can you help me identify the author?

John Vanko said: Does any one recognize this argument? Can you help me identify the author?