Why we still have to take creationism seriously

ncse.org: Webster et al. v. New Lenox School District et al. (Full title: Ray Webster and Matthew Dunne, by and through his parents and next best friends, Philip and Helen Dunne, Plaintiffs, v. New Lenox School District No. 122 and Alex M. Martino, and as Superintendent of New Lenox School District No. 122, Defendants) In 1987, Ray Webster and Matthew Dunne sued the New Lenox School District of Illinois, as well as Alex Martino, the district superintendent. Webster was a junior high school social studies teacher in that district, and Dunne was one of his students. After complaints about proselytizing in his class, Webster had been advised by the district to refrain from religious advocacy in his teaching, and in particular to refrain from teaching creation science. In the suit, Webster argued that he had a first amendment right to determine his own teaching curriculum, and that it was necessary to teach creation science in order to balance pro-evolution statements in the social studies textbook. Dunne, for his part, argued that he had the right as a student to hear about creation science in school. On May 25, 1989, US District Judge George Marovich dismissed their complaint, ruling that Webster could not teach creation science without violating the first amendment, and that the district had a right to require Webster to teach within its established curriculum framework. Marovich also ruled that Dunne’s desires to learn about creation science in school were outweighed by the district’s interest in avoiding the violation of the estalishment clause or other students’ first amendment rights. Webster appealed, but on November 6, 1990, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court decision. All the legal documentation available to us for this case is provided at the bottom of this page. It is arranged in chronological order.

I am pleased to say that Dr. Ron Paul supports academic freedom even if Dr.Hoppe does not:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw

Ron is a physician by training.

The creationists have already tried the academic freedom tactic. It failed in court and there is a lot of case law.

The fact that they are recycling old failures means they have run out of ideas. For now. But they will never go away. The DI gets about $4 million a year from Dominionist sources, including Ahmanson. Ahmanson is a billionaire and isn't going to run out of money soon. It's an easy and high paying job for a few propagandists.

Their other scam is teaching the strengths and weaknesses of evolution. Usually they just teach the creationist weaknesses which are strawpeople and lies. The strengths of evolution are omitted.

Strengths and weaknesses = beating up on evolution with handouts from the ICR, the DI, and Ham's creation museum.

.

Great video. I especially liked the phylogeny of creationist bill language. Man these guys just can't lie very well. Also a great discussion of the real meaning of "critical thinking" and "academic freedom". Man these guys just aren't very good at deceit.

Freshwater should have watched this video, It might have saved him some trouble. Maybe not.

Academic freedom claims for creationism fail for three reasons.

1. Creationism is a religious dogma. Rarely they try to hide it but they can't stop babbling on about jesus, god, hell, and satan.

2. There aren't always two sides to an issue. One side can simply be wrong. Creationism was proven wrong centuries ago.

3. There can be more than two sides to an issue. They are dozens of creation myths. Nowadays there are lots of Hindu creationists who claim the earth and humans are billions of years old. All but one can still be wrong.

Here's the deal, good Pandas:

Louisiana Science Education Act. Texas Science Standards.

Critical thinking and academic freedom, won.

Eugenie Scott and her cult, lost.

A very merry Christmas, yes?

******

FL

(ps......I'm back, mostly at night.)

Why take creationism seriously?

Because highly vocal zealots are trying hard to undermine science education wherever they can.

FL said: Here's the deal, good Pandas: Louisiana Science Education Act. Texas Science Standards. Critical thinking and academic freedom, won.

Eugenie Scott and her cult, lost.

A very merry Christmas, yes?

****** FL (ps......I'm back, mostly at night.)

Henry J said: Why take creationism seriously? Because highly vocal zealots are trying hard to undermine science education wherever they can.

In fact, FL, if you're not lying, then how come there are no jobs or occupations based on Creationism outside of Christian apologists and swindlers?

Why is it that students who were taught by Creationists do not understand science at all?

Why is that the Oil and Agriculture Industries do not use or accept Creationism in any of its permutations?

In fact, why is it that, of those very few Creationist biologists, not a single one was ever educated by other Creationists, but by "evolutionist" (sic) and "Darwinist" (sic) biologists?

Rather telling.

Why is that the Oil and Agriculture Industries do not use or accept Creationism in any of its permutations?

apokryltaros said:

FL the delusional Xian creotard drooled: Here's the deal, good Pandas: Louisiana Science Education Act. Texas Science Standards. Critical thinking and academic freedom, won.

FL is back, and he's lying as usual. If Louisiana's and Texas' educational programs are so great because of Creationist legislation, then how come they're still turning out among the very worst test scores in the country? It's because FL is stupid enough to believe that repeating the same lie over and over and over and over again, we'll eventually, magically believe him.

Eugenie Scott and her cult, lost.

Just because Eugenie Scott does not worship you or your bigoted interpretation of the Bible does not make her a "cultist." Just because you hate Evolution and Science and Education with your heart and disgusting soul does not make Evolution a "cult." To define Evolution, Science, and or Education a "cult," like the way you slander them, is to destroy the very definition of "cult." In other words, if Evolution is a cult, then so are cooking, and stamp-collecting and driving a car.

A very merry Christmas, yes?

Now that you're back trolling here, absolutely not. FL, you have as much charm and grace as a perforated colon.

****** FL (ps......I'm back, mostly at night.)

I would like to tell you that it would be better if you just stop posting, but, you take sexual delight in antagonizing us with your lies and trolling.

Atheistoclast said: I am pleased to say that Dr. Ron Paul supports academic freedom even if Dr.Hoppe does not: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw Ron is a physician by training.

While the rest of you are feeding, I'll really spoil the party. I applaud Scott's efforts 100%, but I'm afraid that, even if we win every case, and overturn the few that we lost, the heart of the problem will still remain, and we are guaranteed more battles, and more potential losses to the enemies of science and masters of rhetoric. So what else needs to be done, and how do we do it? It's probably not what you're thinking.

Try this. Ask a random person on the street who does not appear to be a Fundamentalist:

1. ...to define "creationism." Chances are they'll call it a "belief" whether they agree or disagree with it. It may have been an honest belief in the Scopes era, but now it is a full-blown pseudoscience, in many mutually-contradictory versions, with the common strategy to promote unreasonable doubt of evolution by any means possible, while censoring the fatal weaknesses and contradictions in the "creationism" that those people on the street actually believe.

2. ...whether Buckingham and Bonsell lied, and ~99% will say "who?" As they will when you ask who John Freshwater is, and why the DI neither helped him (because he shares their mission to promote unreasonable doubt of evolution), nor publicly criticized him for using the politically incorrect strategy.

3. ...who described the multiple lines of independent evidence for evolution as "convergence, neither sought nor fabricated," apparently painfully aware that "creationism," despite decades of seeking and fabricating, is further from convergence than ever.

4. ...which came first, the strategy to play "don't ask, don't tell" on the "what happened when" of "creationism," or the strategy to replace an identified Creator with an unidentified designer.

5. ...who said that the designer could be deceased, that, if the rules of science were relaxed to accommodate ID that it would also accommodate astrology, that reading the Bible as a science text is silly, and agrees that the design of life was implemented via ~4 billion years of common descent.

For #6, you can even ask one of the tiny minority that does know about Dover, Pope John Paul II's statement, and Michael Behe's position (and the DI's apparent acceptance of it by default):

6. ...Is it OK to teach "creationism" in Sunday School? Sadly, most people will say "yes." To which I say, it may be legal to teach creationism, but not moral. It may be both legal and moral to teach Bible stories that many students already know not to take literally. But "creationism" is first and foremost deliberate misrepresentation of evolution, with the refutations of those misrepresentations censored. That is even more morally reprehensible in a class that teaches "thou shalt not bear false witness" than it is in a taxpayer-funded science class.

Frank J said: While the rest of you are feeding, I'll really spoil the party. I applaud Scott's efforts 100%, but I'm afraid that, even if we win every case, and overturn the few that we lost, the heart of the problem will still remain, and we are guaranteed more battles, and more potential losses to the enemies of science and masters of rhetoric. So what else needs to be done, and how do we do it? It's probably not what you're thinking. Try this. Ask a random person on the street who does not appear to be a Fundamentalist: 1. ...to define "creationism." Chances are they'll call it a "belief" whether they agree or disagree with it. It may have been an honest belief in the Scopes era, but now it is a full-blown pseudoscience, in many mutually-contradictory versions, with the common strategy to promote unreasonable doubt of evolution by any means possible, while censoring the fatal weaknesses and contradictions in the "creationism" that those people on the street actually believe. 2. ...whether Buckingham and Bonsell lied, and ~99% will say "who?" As they will when you ask who John Freshwater is, and why the DI neither helped him (because he shares their mission to promote unreasonable doubt of evolution), nor publicly criticized him for using the politically incorrect strategy. 3. ...who described the multiple lines of independent evidence for evolution as "convergence, neither sought nor fabricated," apparently painfully aware that "creationism," despite decades of seeking and fabricating, is further from convergence than ever. 4. ...which came first, the strategy to play "don't ask, don't tell" on the "what happened when" of "creationism," or the strategy to replace an identified Creator with an unidentified designer. 5. ...who said that the designer could be deceased, that, if the rules of science were relaxed to accommodate ID that it would also accommodate astrology, that reading the Bible as a science text is silly, and agrees that the design of life was implemented via ~4 billion years of common descent. For #6, you can even ask one of the tiny minority that does know about Dover, Pope John Paul II's statement, and Michael Behe's position (and the DI's apparent acceptance of it by default): 6. ...Is it OK to teach "creationism" in Sunday School? Sadly, most people will say "yes." To which I say, it may be legal to teach creationism, but not moral. It may be both legal and moral to teach Bible stories that many students already know not to take literally. But "creationism" is first and foremost deliberate misrepresentation of evolution, with the refutations of those misrepresentations censored. That is even more morally reprehensible in a class that teaches "thou shalt not bear false witness" than it is in a taxpayer-funded science class.

Frank J wrote:

"While the rest of you are feeding, I’ll really spoil the party. I applaud Scott’s efforts 100%, but I’m afraid that, even if we win every case, and overturn the few that we lost, the heart of the problem will still remain, and we are guaranteed more battles, and more potential losses to the enemies of science and masters of rhetoric. So what else needs to be done, and how do we do it? It’s probably not what you’re thinking."

I agree. But Eugenie mentioned a course of action in her talk. She recommended that those who teach biology at the college level make a concerted effort to incorporate evolution into introductory biology and higher level classes. In this way, not only students will be exposed to proper scientific methodology and findings, but future teachers will also receive the training they need to teach evolution properly. SInce we have the evidence on out side, this is a critical step in eventually changing public perception. SInce college professors actually do have academic freedom, there is absolutely nothing preventing this from happening.

For example, I strongly emphasize the basics of the scientific method and incorporate evolution throughout Introductory Biology, including a lecture specifically on macroevolution. I do the same for Genetics, including lectures on population genetics. I also take this approach in Molecular Biology, first presenting basic mechanism of gene regulation, then incorporating this into discussions about development and evolutionary development. I also teach an upper level course in Evolutionary Genetics which includes more detailed discussions of all of these areas and includes phylogenetics. An undergraduate in this program is exposed to the scientific method and evolutionary theory from the first lecture to the last. Hopefully, this will eventually create better elementary and high school teachers who are better equipped to teach science in general and evolution in particular.

Of course you could also invite Eugenie to give a talk at your institution, she is great at exposing the lies and deceit of creationists. She is going to be in my neck of the woods in a few months. I will keep you posted.

FL said: Here's the deal, good Pandas: Louisiana Science Education Act. Texas Science Standards. Critical thinking and academic freedom, won. Eugenie Scott and her cult, lost. A very merry Christmas, yes? ****** FL (ps......I'm back, mostly at night.)

Keelyn said: Sorry for feeding the FL troll. We can get around to “stupid in Texas” some other time.

Atheistoclast said: Ron (Paul) is a physician by training.

To give an idea of the intractability of false beliefs:

1. There are still Flat Earthers around who base their geography on holy books. These days they are mostly Moslems, notably a bloody sect of murderers in Nigeria called Boku Harum.

2. There are still Geocentrists around. 20% of the US population (26% of the fundies), think the sun orbits the earth. They can't diagram the solar system, a task I learned in the first grade.

This number of 20% is the percentage of the population who will believe anything no matter how dumb it is. I doubt the percentage of creationists in the USA will ever drop below 20%.

We can live with that. We already are. A lot of that 20% will be so dysfunctional, low in intelligence, and uneducated as to not matter much overall. Don't forget that half the US population has a median IQ below 100.

raven said: Don't forget that half the US population has a median IQ below 100.

One problem:

Of that 20%, many of them vote.
In elections where turnout can be single digits, that means that they're plenty capable of doing damage. They DO matter.

apokryltaros said:

Keelyn said: Sorry for feeding the FL troll. We can get around to “stupid in Texas” some other time.

Why apologize? FL posted bullshit and lies, and you vivisected him magnificently.

She recommended that those who teach biology at the college level make a concerted effort to incorporate evolution into introductory biology and higher level classes. In this way, not only students will be exposed to proper scientific methodology and findings, but future teachers will also receive the training they need to teach evolution properly. SInce we have the evidence on out side, this is a critical step in eventually changing public perception. SInce college professors actually do have academic freedom, there is absolutely nothing preventing this from happening.

— DS

Of course you could also invite Eugenie to give a talk at your institution, she is great at exposing the lies and deceit of creationists. She is going to be in my neck of the woods in a few months. I will keep you posted.

— DS

Alien abduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_abductionCached - Similar People claiming to have been abducted are usually called "abductees" or " experiencers. .... affair than the 'entirely unpredisposed' official history would have us believe. .... When abductees ask why they are being studied or undergoing surgery, the ... that 5–6 percent of the general population might have been abducted. ...

Of that 20%, many of them vote.

Messed up links. Try this and this.

Ken Miller, also an excellent speaker and writer, painfully observed our greatest weakness in “Only A Theory.” Which is that we let the anti-evolution activists unite evolution-deniers (YECs, OECs, non-Biblical literalists who accept common descent; Christians, Jews, even some agnostics like Berlinski), and divide us, usually along theist/atheist lines that have nothing to do with the healthy scientific disagreements that we don’t cover up.

Since 1999, I have not encountered anyone who denies evolution or AGW, regardless of stated rationale, who was not a strong supporter of the mainstream Fox/Limbaugh/Liberty University right wing alliance.

If fundamentalist Pentecostals and fundamentalist Jehovah’s Witnesses have a dispute, it’s all just a contest of will.

Hi harold,

It's JK in case you don't recognize who this is (For some reason I can't login via my Facebook account.), but we have someone who has been posting here lately, treeowl, who seems to have bought into the postmodernist thought espoused by some on the Left who think that science is just a "belief system" and that it does not produce anything resembling the truth. Some of that thought, as Ken Miller and Shawn Otto have noted, has seeped into the evolution denialist community too, especially amongst those who espouse Intelligent Design. So just because you haven't seen any on the Left who are evolution denialists, doesn't mean that they don't exist (And I am saying this not to exonerate my fellow Conservatives and Republicans, but to remind you that there are most likely others who condemn evolutionary biology for reasons that have nothing to do with their Fundie Xian (or Jewish or Muslim, etc.) beliefs.

raven said:

If fundamentalist Pentecostals and fundamentalist Jehovah’s Witnesses have a dispute, it’s all just a contest of will.

Don't underestimate the cultists' differences. When they aren't hating us, they hate each other. 3/4 of xian ministers claim the Mormons aren't real xians. There are splits between the Pentecostalists and everyone else. The JW's are non- Trinitarian, a big heresy among the Trinitarians.

Some people are using that fact as evidence that fundie xianity has died in place. They don’t really believe in god anymore or read their magic books or care. It’s all become extreme right wing politics with a few god stickers slapped on. Plus tribalism, ingroup outgroup identification.

Just a thought - could a teacher use the LSEA to justify engaging in an "open and objective discussion" (i.e., criticism) of biblical creationism and ID? Would the courts then be forced into the dilemma of either ruling the law itself unconstitutional (because it attempts to permit violation of the Establishment Clause) or else ruling that these aren't "science" and therefore criticism of them isn't protected or permitted by the law?

Hi harold, It’s JK in case you don’t recognize who this is (For some reason I can’t login via my Facebook account.),

but we have someone who has been posting here lately, treeowl, who seems to have bought into the postmodernist thought espoused by some on the Left who think that science is just a “belief system” and that it does not produce anything resembling the truth.

Some of that thought, as Ken Miller and Shawn Otto have noted, has seeped into the evolution denialist community too, especially amongst those who espouse Intelligent Design.

So just because you haven’t seen any on the Left who are evolution denialists, doesn’t mean that they don’t exist

(And I am saying this not to exonerate my fellow Conservatives and Republicans, but to remind you that there are most likely others who condemn evolutionary biology for reasons that have nothing to do with their Fundie Xian (or Jewish or Muslim, etc.) beliefs.

While I agree that FL is a troll and that generally we should not feed him, we must keep in mind that he is, this once, on topic, if only as an illustration. The responses have been good, on topic assessments of his claims and have shown the LSEA for the non-victory it is.

That said, I am all for Richard B. Hoppe to consign further FL posts and their responses to the BW.

dpr

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said:

Atheistoclast said: I am pleased to say that Dr. Ron Paul supports academic freedom even if Dr.Hoppe does not: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw Ron is a physician by training.

A major reason - though not the only one - why I, as a Conservative Republican, can't support the delusional Ron Paul. IMHO he's just as bad as Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum.

They understand that, they understand it instinctively, and you will not be able to convince them to break up their alliance with each other as long as the threatening common enemy remains.

— harold

This is not a feeding, but an attempt to prevent it:

Rick Perry's mention of the "gaps" is a deliberate distraction. He's well aware that that the average voter will not take the time to read and understand the refutations of those misrepresentations peddled as "gaps." The net result is censorship by activists who have the unmitigated gall to accuse us of "censorship."

What makes Perry the last person anyone - Dem or Rep - should ever vote for, however, is his playing dumb on the question about the age of the Earth. He could have said "Scientists are better equipped to answer that than I am, but I understand that the great majority say several billion years old," or "I believe in my heart that 99.9% of scientists are wrong." But he chose to weasel out of an answer. That plus his relationship with Don "big tent" McLeroy, makes it clear that he's not a clueless rube, but in on the scam.

Theistoclast,

Have you completed that tricky “stochastic differentiation” yet?

Please educate us on the correct age of the Earth.

Theistoclast says: “By my calculations, there is a disparity between the age of the planet and the material it is made from. …But if you had to press me, I would say the planet is between 0.8bn to 1.5 bn years old.”

...“It is based on iridum dating for isotopes 191Ir and 193Ir. I have also studied lava flows and rock formations. The figure of 4.6bn years is much too high.”...

...“The math is beyond the ken of everyone here. I can’t reduce it to baby steps. There is some serious calculus involved with double integrals and the like.”...

...“Like I say. It is complicated. I would need 4 pages of pure math just to explain it to you. It also involves some very taxing stochastic differentiation.”...

Or, perhaps you were lying?

Ah, Mr Palin - I mean, Perry - and his "gaps" dog-whistle. An intellectual giant if there was one - the man who couldn't remember which governmental agencies he'd abolish once he was in office; the man who's the most hated youtuber since Rebecca Black.

That the theory of evolution is not 100% complete is readily acknowledged by anyone who understands the theory and has the integrity and honesty to realise the limits of our knowledge - and the intelligence and pragmatism to realise that "not complete" is not equal to "bogus/unproven/false/useless".

That the competing "theory" (it's closer to a notion) of ID creationism is so incomplete and undefined and vague as to be useless for directing inquiry or research doesn't seem to pose a problem for its adherents; they just soldier on, inventing all sorts of reasons why evolution cannot and does not occur or work as described and proclaiming all sorts of imminent ends for the theory (none of which have yet to occur) - or for the worldwide academic cabal that props it up and expels its proponents.

That the other competing "theory" of full-blown six-toed moonshine-blind Genesis-is-a-textbook creationism is both 100% complete (God did everything! Look, ma, no gaps!), 100% unsupported by any evidence and 100% useless in any scientific field or any practical endeavour (except for the selling of creationist material by charlatans to rubes) doesn't seem to be worth as much discussion as evolution's incompleteness - which is odd when you hear all this "teach both sides" and "teach the gaps" and "strengths and weaknesses" malarkey. Creationism might not have any gaps, but by sweet flaming crikey it's weaker than homeopathic dishwater.

unkle.hank said: ... it's weaker than homeopathic dishwater.

Gotta remember, we're talking politicians here. They probably no longer know what they believe, because believing isn't their business. Their business is to pander to what a majority of voters believe. The current crop of Republicans are, for the most part, competing to see who can stand on the taller stack of bibles. And if Jesus didn't have no biology degree, why should us voters think them atheistical eggheads know anything anyway?

Hell, Bobby Jindal DOES have a biology degree. Which doesn't prevent him from appealing to a majority of the citizens of Lousyanna.

SWT said:

unkle.hank said: ... it's weaker than homeopathic dishwater.

I need to write this one down!

The level of response due people like Atheistoclast, FL, et. al I think can be summed up by two excellent cartoon strips:

http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2011/09/19 (9-19 through 9/24)

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/archive/2011/07/10 (the Louisiana case)

D P Robin said: While I agree that FL is a troll and that generally we should not feed him, we must keep in mind that he is, this once, on topic, if only as an illustration. The responses have been good, on topic assessments of his claims and have shown the LSEA for the non-victory it is. That said, I am all for Richard B. Hoppe to consign further FL posts and their responses to the BW. dpr

DavidK said: The level of response due people like Atheistoclast, FL, et. al I think can be summed up by two excellent cartoon strips: http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2011/09/19 (9-19 through 9/24) http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/archive/2011/07/10 (the Louisiana case)

Atheistoclast said: ...teachers will be allowed to present my peer-reviewed articles in classrooms across America.

No bill can ever make it legal to teach creationism in U. S. classrooms. No matter what creationists try, they will be caught and prosecuted. Academic freedom will never mean what creationists want it to mean, no matter how much they lie about it.

As Eugenie put it: "no dear, you don't get to decide, you're in seventh grade".

Raven said: This number of 20% is the percentage of the population who will believe anything no matter how dumb it is.

and schistkicker replied: One problem: Of that 20%, many of them vote.

Atheistoclast said: Hopefully, I will be giving a talk to the University of Arkansas kids if Dr. Plavcan books a room.

As was pointed out in another recent thread, somebody needs to explain to the fundagelical frootloops that if “academic freedom” is invoked when creationism versus evolution is discussed, “academic freedom” should also be invoked when discussing abstinence versus birth control, capitalism versus communism, heterosexual marriage versus gay marriage, etc…explain both sides fairly and let the children decide.

Whattaya think, Floyd, IBIG, A-clast, et al? Let "academic freedom" ring throughout the curriculum, or just when discussing the miracles of creationism?

As was pointed out in another recent thread, somebody needs to explain to the fundagelical frootloops...

— Paul Burnett

Paul Burnett said: As was pointed out in another recent thread, somebody needs to explain to the fundagelical frootloops that if “academic freedom” is invoked when creationism versus evolution is discussed, “academic freedom” should also be invoked when discussing abstinence versus birth control, capitalism versus communism, heterosexual marriage versus gay marriage, etc…explain both sides fairly and let the children decide. Whattaya think, Floyd, IBIG, A-clast, et al? Let "academic freedom" ring throughout the curriculum, or just when discussing the miracles of creationism?

So quickly we have fallen into the creationist's false dichotomy. Atheistoclast wants us to teach "both sides of the dispute" as they do in Texas. Then, in the next posts, we evolutionists validate this creationist framing. There are more than two theories that can be presented that explain the rich diversity of life on this planet. The question we should ask our fellow creationists is, why should we teach my children only your version and not others, such as those of the Anastasi, or the ancient Greeks?

Now, if creationists were honest, they would recognize that evolution is the only true explanation, warts and all (evolution having the warts - gosh, the written word can be so misleading).

John_S said: Just a thought - could a teacher use the LSEA to justify engaging in an "open and objective discussion" (i.e., criticism) of biblical creationism and ID?

Would the courts then be forced into the dilemma of either ruling the law itself unconstitutional (because it attempts to permit violation of the Establishment Clause) or else ruling that these aren't "science" and therefore criticism of them isn't protected or permitted by the law?

Atheistoclast said: He [Perry] remarks that the theory "has gaps" ,which it does, and that in Texas they teach both sides of the dispute. I think he comes across as being very rational and informed.

'clast,

Having been in a number of high school science classrooms (for more than just a single day like you would be), I assure you there isn't a single paper, peer-reviewed or otherwise, in high school science classes. Why?

Because the students are not ready. I suspect you would like to teach a class on the probability that a DNA would form just so in order to produce a protein, blah blah blah...

In those classrooms, something like 35% of the students are not even in Algebra 1. 65% are in Algebra 1 (and of those less than 70% are routinely passing). A miniscule number are in an advanced math class and can understand advanced probability.

Further, less than 80% of those students have ever heard of DNA, proteins or the mechanisms of mutation and evolution before this class. In that class, they will spend about 2 days on DNA. And by that, I mean, DNA is made of 4 types of nucleotides and provides the blueprints for proteins. Protein synthesis and codon charts are often left to Biology II, AP Biology, or college.

In other words, the large majority of students in those classes that you would like to present your papers in, don't have enough knowledge to even understand what you are talking about, much less have the sophisticated knowledge and skills needed to show why your claims are wrong.

Of course, those are exactly the students you want to reach aren't they? Get them before they understand that you are wrong. Then convince them not to ask questions... just like religion for that matter.

You still haven't given me a lesson plan for a pro-ID lesson in a Texas classroom, where 40% of the time spent must be in lab. I said I would be generous and give you a full week of time to teach ID, provided you had 3 days worth of material (notes, handouts, worksheets, reference materials) and 2 days worth of labs that would indisputably show ID concepts.

Atheistoclast said:

DavidK said: The level of response due people like Atheistoclast, FL, et. al I think can be summed up by two excellent cartoon strips: http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2011/09/19 (9-19 through 9/24) http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/archive/2011/07/10 (the Louisiana case)

Academic freedom bills will continue to pass into law and teachers will be allowed to present my peer-reviewed articles in classrooms across America. I will happily show up at any high school if invited by a teacher to give students some lessons on biology. Hopefully, I will be giving a talk to the University of Arkansas kids if Dr. Plavcan books a room.

Henry said:

Atheistoclast said:

DavidK said: The level of response due people like Atheistoclast, FL, et. al I think can be summed up by two excellent cartoon strips: http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2011/09/19 (9-19 through 9/24) http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/archive/2011/07/10 (the Louisiana case)

Academic freedom bills will continue to pass into law and teachers will be allowed to present my peer-reviewed articles in classrooms across America. I will happily show up at any high school if invited by a teacher to give students some lessons on biology. Hopefully, I will be giving a talk to the University of Arkansas kids if Dr. Plavcan books a room.

Merry Christmas

DS said: Actually, it's worse than that. If "academic freedom" is interpreted to mean, substitute your own religious views for science, then it would include all religious views. Now that would be academic freedom, right? What, "academic freedom" only means one kind of religious view? Really? Which of the words is it that means that?

Then, in the next posts, we evolutionists validate this creationist framing...The question we should ask our fellow creationists is, why should we teach my children only your version and not others, such as those of the Anastasi, or the ancient Greeks?

— JimNorth

Richard B. Hoppe said: Here's another implication that I doubt the proponents of these "academic freedom" bills have thought through: By prohibiting sanctions against teachers who introduce alternatives, which they explicitly do, they would remove local school board control of the curriculum and turn that control over to individual teachers.

ogremk5 said: You still haven't given me a lesson plan for a pro-ID lesson in a Texas classroom, where 40% of the time spent must be in lab. I said I would be generous and give you a full week of time to teach ID, provided you had 3 days worth of material (notes, handouts, worksheets, reference materials) and 2 days worth of labs that would indisputably show ID concepts.

harold said:

Henry said:

Atheistoclast said:

DavidK said: The level of response due people like Atheistoclast, FL, et. al I think can be summed up by two excellent cartoon strips: http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2011/09/19 (9-19 through 9/24) http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/archive/2011/07/10 (the Louisiana case)

Academic freedom bills will continue to pass into law and teachers will be allowed to present my peer-reviewed articles in classrooms across America. I will happily show up at any high school if invited by a teacher to give students some lessons on biology. Hopefully, I will be giving a talk to the University of Arkansas kids if Dr. Plavcan books a room.

Merry Christmas

Did you mistakenly presume the person who made this comment to be a traditional Christian, because they attack science and support right wing politicians? Or did you know otherwise, and make that comment to taunt them? As a person of Christian cultural heritage, I will be celebrating Christmas heartily, as I do every year. Of course, lots of pagan stuff like Santa Claus, Christmas trees, mistletoe, elves, and so on will be involved, not to mention the solstice timing of the holiday. Naturally, since a major theme of the holiday is generosity and good will toward my fellow humans, I'll always make it clear that it's an inclusive time of good cheer and traditional celebrations, a good time to put aside differences and hostilities; I have at least one culturally Muslim friend who puts up a tree, and I encourage that. That's why I was so happy when Mayor Mike Bloomberg of NYC referred to the Rockefeller Center tree as a "Holiday Tree". I call it a "Christmas Tree", too, of course, but I want people to feel that it's for everyone to enjoy. (This statement not intended as an overall endorsement of Bloomberg policies.) That's the way my austere Baptist ancestors taught me to celebrate it, and that's one of the many things they were right about. It was minimally controversial. There were some people who were too austere for Christmas, but that's not my tradition. I call it "Christmas", but I also say "Happy Holidays" sometimes. I learned to do that as a child, as a short form of "Merry Christmas and Happy New Year" (where I grew up some Anglophone people traditionally said "Happy Christmas", so "Happy Holidays" was especially useful for them). There weren't many Jewish people where I grew up, but I learned that Jewish people also have a cheerful, gift-giving holiday around winter solstice time, which makes "Happy Holidays" even more useful.

Merry Christmas Henry.

Now as your gift to us could you please try to stay on topic. As a reminder, the topic is why the supporters of science education should take Creationists seriously (on the political front).

patrickmay.myopenid.com said:

ogremk5 said: You still haven't given me a lesson plan for a pro-ID lesson in a Texas classroom, where 40% of the time spent must be in lab. I said I would be generous and give you a full week of time to teach ID, provided you had 3 days worth of material (notes, handouts, worksheets, reference materials) and 2 days worth of labs that would indisputably show ID concepts.

The problem, of course, is that there are no "ID concepts" to be demonstrated.

Logically judging from the comments on this website, especially as regards this subject, I have come to the conclusion of what a scientist is. A scientist, or a man of science in general, is an ape with substandard morality and a very low intelligence level with a maturity level to match, who only appears to be a human being. Thanks for your useful information in logically deducting what a scientist is.

And thank you for your thoughtful, mature, professionally-qualified, balanced contribution.

Please remember to flush.

fnxtr said: And thank you for your thoughtful, mature, professionally-qualified, balanced contribution. Please remember to flush.

OOO OOO AAAKKK AAKKK EEEK EEK to you too sir.

I call Poe on this one.

arealhumanbeing said: Logically judging from the comments on this website, especially as regards this subject, I have come to the conclusion of what a scientist is. A scientist, or a man of science in general, is an ape with substandard morality and a very low intelligence level with a maturity level to match, who only appears to be a human being. Thanks for your useful information in logically deducting what a scientist is.

arealhumanbeing said: OOO OOO AAAKKK AAKKK EEEK EEK to you too sir.

By the way, Eugenie is an excellent speaker.

arealhumanbeing said: OOO OOO AAAKKK AAKKK EEEK EEK to you too sir.

SWT said: I call Poe on this one.

mplavcan said:

arealhumanbeing said: OOO OOO AAAKKK AAKKK EEEK EEK to you too sir.

Ahhhh....I see that you have the ability to fling poo at people you don't like.

arealhumanbeing said: Logically judging from the comments on this website, especially as regards this subject, I have come to the conclusion of what a scientist is. A scientist, or a man of science in general, is an ape with substandard morality and a very low intelligence level with a maturity level to match, who only appears to be a human being. Thanks for your useful information in logically deducting what a scientist is.

Ian Brandon Andersen said: This is why they have so many sex partners...and now have trouble distinguishing male and female.

arealhumanbeing said: OOO OOO AAAKKK AAKKK EEEK EEK to you too sir.

Paul Burnett said:

Ian Brandon Andersen said: This is why they have so many sex partners...and now have trouble distinguishing male and female.

Please leave Newt "Serial Adulterer" Gingrich out of this thread...not to mention Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Haggard and other shining examples of Christian heterosexual monogamy.

Man, it sure isn’t hard to tell what this IBAndersen troll is obsessed with.

Ian, as opposed to people like you, who use their faith in God to be complete assholes who do nothing but slander and lie about people who are not perfect copies of yourself?

Mike Elzinga said: Man, it sure isn’t hard to tell what this IBAndersen troll is obsessed with.

Mike Elzinga said: Man, it sure isn’t hard to tell what this IBAndersen troll is obsessed with.

Ian Brandon Andersen said: I was not speaking of [serial Christian adulterers]. Those guys are actually aware they are committing adultery; they have not been dumbed down by Darwinism. I was speaking of Darwiniacs who just randomly and almost subconsciously fornicate like a bunch of dingos sniffing each others' bums, like at Woodstock. They don't even understand their beliefs well enough to even try the S and M scene.

The trolls on this thread demonstrate that we need to take creationists seriously.

Not because they have anything to say.

On the contrary: Creationists seek to stop anyone and everyone from saying anything that might cast a light on them. Thus, the nonstop, shameless lying, slander, and inane obsession with fornication.

So, we should take them seriously in the same way one should take a tumor seriously.

apokryltaros said: The trolls on this thread demonstrate that we need to take creationists seriously. Not because they have anything to say. On the contrary: Creationists seek to stop anyone and everyone from saying anything that might cast a light on them. Thus, the nonstop, shameless lying, slander, and inane obsession with fornication. So, we should take them seriously in the same way one should take a tumor seriously.

Either one is free ,academic wise, or one is not free.
If they are saying academic freedom is for university researchers and not teachers in high school then someone is still deciding what can be taught in high school.
Academic freedom is indeed a belief or spirit that is embraced by the western nations.
This is why creationists powerfully tap into it.
just as opposition to this smacks of historic control over what is taught to the people.
Thats why its a winning point for creationists.

In all of this it comes down to the equation of what is true, who decides what is true, who decides what is not true, and who decides who makes those decisions.
This because the schools are claiming to the kids they are seeking the truth and teaching the results from those who study it.
If the people don't decide , when there is a contention, then it comes down to some power to decide.

In America this has never worked about issues the people care about.
State censorship in the schools is so unAmerican that only the disinterest in these things is what lets it survive.
I think not for long as more people get involved.
Thats why this video talk is needed.
Freedom of thought and conclusions about origins seriously gaining in passion and ability.
WE shall overcome.
Ms Scott commends involvement on her side and this teaches everyone to get involved for what is right as one sees it.

mplavcan said: By the way, Eugenie is an excellent speaker.

The usual black and white fundy claptrap from Byers. You are free or you aren't free.

Well, Byers, minors and children are not free. You don't believe for a skinny minute that they ought to be, either. You're just urging a falsehood you don't accept, solely because it's momentarily expedient to you, you hypocrite.

Who decides what is true, Byers? Nobody decides. The truth isn't negotiable. It is demonstrable. Nobody decides. The evidence shows. The power that decides is the facts.

You shall not overcome, Byers. Your ideas were defeated over a century ago and your successive attempts to dissemble and smuggle them in anyway have met with nothing but abject failure. Sure, you'll die before you give up, but that's OK, Byers. It won't alter anything.

EIther you are free to accept the conclusions of science or you are not. If your religious preconceptions preclude the examination of evidence, you are not free and never will be. THe truth will set you free, if you have the guts to accept the truth.

Academic freedom is not all or nothing. An elementary school child does not have the same kind of academic freedom that and elementary school teacher has. A college student does not have the same kind of academic freedom that a college professor has. As elementary school child certainly does not have the same kind of academic freedom that a college professor has. And none of these people has the freedom to impose their own religious preconceptions on others at tax payer expense. To claim otherwise is simply to ignore reality. Imagine that.

Robert Byers said: If they are saying academic freedom is for university researchers and not teachers in high school then someone is still deciding what can be taught in high school.

In all of this it comes down to the equation of what is true, who decides what is true, who decides what is not true, and who decides who makes those decisions.

eric said:

In all of this it comes down to the equation of what is true, who decides what is true, who decides what is not true, and who decides who makes those decisions.

No, it comes down to false advertising. If you just want to teach kids bible study, you could do that in elective bible study classes. Creationists want to claim creationism is science when it isn't. That is false advertising. Creationism is not science. So regardless of whether its true, it doesn't belong in science class. If you think it is a true-but-not-science subject, teach it in a separate class.

Hello again boys. Because of illness, I wasn't able to respond to your posts until now.

So it's kinda interesting to see Mr. DP Robin call for me (and any responses to me) to be consigned to the BW after only one post. And it's equally interesting to see DP's fellow poster, Mr Paul Burnett, totally ignore DP's recommendation and offer a serious question to me, IBIG, and Atheistoclat.

Typical Panda Duality, yes?

***

Meanwhile, another poster says that Zack Kopplin is still on the job, despite getting spanked not long ago by the the Louisiana Legislature in his attempt to "repeal" the LSEA. So maybe I'll stop by his website again to see if he's got anything cooking.

Somehow, with the demands of university life and the defeat of his "repeal", I suspect Zack may not have as much evolutionary energy as he used to. But we'll see.

***

Meanwhile, as Keelyn (adversarially) conceded, it HAS been over three years, and not ONE creationist in all of Bible-lovin' Louisiana, has violated the LSEA. Nor has a single creationist given ANY evolutinist any opportunity to go to court.

Most interesting!

FL

FL the Asshole for Jesus taunted: Hello again boys. Because of illness, I wasn't able to respond to your posts until now. So it's kinda interesting to see Mr. DP Robin call for me (and any responses to me) to be consigned to the BW after only one post. And it's equally interesting to see DP's fellow poster, Mr Paul Burnett, totally ignore DP's recommendation and offer a serious question to me, IBIG, and Atheistoclat. Typical Panda Duality, yes?

Meanwhile, as Keelyn (adversarially) conceded, it HAS been over three years, and not ONE creationist in all of Bible-lovin' Louisiana, has violated the LSEA. Nor has a single creationist given ANY evolutinist any opportunity to go to court. Most interesting!

Did I say "gloss over"?

I meant "ignore entirely"

arealhumanbeing said: Logically judging from the comments on this website, especially as regards this subject, I have come to the conclusion of what a SCIENCE DENIALIST is. A SCIENCE DENIALIST, or a man(or woman) who rejects science in general, is an ape with substandard morality and a very low intelligence level with a maturity level to match, who only appears to be a human being. Thanks for your useful information in logically deducting what a SCIENCE DENIALIST is.... someone such as myself, areahumanbeing.

Floyd the mendacious creotard troll said: Hello again boys. Because of illness, I wasn't able to respond to your posts until now. So it's kinda interesting to see Mr. DP Robin call for me (and any responses to me) to be consigned to the BW after only one post. And it's equally interesting to see DP's fellow poster, Mr Paul Burnett, totally ignore DP's recommendation and offer a serious question to me, IBIG, and Atheistoclat. Typical Panda Duality, yes? *** Meanwhile, another poster says that Zack Kopplin is still on the job, despite getting spanked not long ago by the the Louisiana Legislature in his attempt to "repeal" the LSEA. So maybe I'll stop by his website again to see if he's got anything cooking. Somehow, with the demands of university life and the defeat of his "repeal", I suspect Zack may not have as much evolutionary energy as he used to. But we'll see. *** Meanwhile, as Keelyn (adversarially) conceded, it HAS been over three years, and not ONE creationist in all of Bible-lovin' Louisiana, has violated the LSEA. Nor has a single creationist given ANY evolutinist any opportunity to go to court. Most interesting! FL

Fascinatingly, I am a scientist and an atheist. Yep, I'm so immoral I've only been married for 16 years. To one woman, who is the only one I've ever slept with, with a child I (amazingly) have not eaten.

Badger-boy, unfortunately, refuses to see non-christians as humans.

This is the power of fundamentalist stupidity. They are so hyper-agressive. They speak with authority, demanding respect and obedience with their speech and their constant threats of eternal damnation.

Our goal is to provide everyone with the tools they need to realize that these people (FL, 'clast, byers, etc) have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. General knowledge of science is a must, but more important is critical thinking, the ability to conduct research and validate the source material. With these tools, just about anyone can show that these guys are without clue.

The other skill that I encourage is to actually read the entire Bible, not just the parts talked about on Sunday.

Of course, people like our friend bugger-boy are the best advertisement for atheism there is. Who would want to be in a small room with people like this?

Of course, people like our friend bugger-boy are the best advertisement for atheism there is. Who would want to be in a small room with people like this?

arealhumanbeing said: You could start by actually addressing the Creation Science ...

arealhumanbeing said: You could start by actually addressing the Creation Science perspective for a change. I'll wait here and watch as you totally misunderstand the position as is usually the case.

tomh said:

arealhumanbeing said: You could start by actually addressing the Creation Science ...

Creation Science? That is so 1980's.

"arealhumanbeing" now inhabits the Bathroom Wall.

Mike Elzinga said:

arealhumanbeing said: You could start by actually addressing the Creation Science perspective for a change. I'll wait here and watch as you totally misunderstand the position as is usually the case.

Translation: “Pay attention to me! I want attention. I want to argue. I know absolutely nothing about science. I know absolutely nothing about scientific creationism either. I hate everybody. I want to insult and throw feces.”

arealhumanbeing said:

tomh said:

arealhumanbeing said: You could start by actually addressing the Creation Science ...

Creation Science? That is so 1980's.

Well before that. But since the 1980's, it seems it has been successfully misunderstood time and time again by evotards.

eric said:

Robert Byers said: If they are saying academic freedom is for university researchers and not teachers in high school then someone is still deciding what can be taught in high school.

Oh Robert, its worse than that - MANY people (above the teachers) are deciding what gets taught in high school! The district school board tells teachers what to teach. The State tells teachers what to teach. And maybe (I don't know for sure) in some cases even the U.S. federal government tells teachers what to teach! Of course, one thing you seem to forget is that voters tend to approve of things like standard curricula. These rules are imposed on teachers by elected officials, who are in many cases (but not all cases) responding to their constituents.

In all of this it comes down to the equation of what is true, who decides what is true, who decides what is not true, and who decides who makes those decisions.

No, it comes down to false advertising. If you just want to teach kids bible study, you could do that in elective bible study classes. Creationists want to claim creationism is science when it isn't. That is false advertising. Creationism is not science. So regardless of whether its true, it doesn't belong in science class. If you think it is a true-but-not-science subject, teach it in a separate class.

Robert Byers said:

eric said:

Robert Byers said: If they are saying academic freedom is for university researchers and not teachers in high school then someone is still deciding what can be taught in high school.

Oh Robert, its worse than that - MANY people (above the teachers) are deciding what gets taught in high school! The district school board tells teachers what to teach. The State tells teachers what to teach. And maybe (I don't know for sure) in some cases even the U.S. federal government tells teachers what to teach! Of course, one thing you seem to forget is that voters tend to approve of things like standard curricula. These rules are imposed on teachers by elected officials, who are in many cases (but not all cases) responding to their constituents.

In all of this it comes down to the equation of what is true, who decides what is true, who decides what is not true, and who decides who makes those decisions.

No, it comes down to false advertising. If you just want to teach kids bible study, you could do that in elective bible study classes. Creationists want to claim creationism is science when it isn't. That is false advertising. Creationism is not science. So regardless of whether its true, it doesn't belong in science class. If you think it is a true-but-not-science subject, teach it in a separate class.

All the powers you mention that are doing the deciding are often the focus for the people arguing about these issues. Elections and petitions. its fine if the public decides by voting in and out. Yet the public must and should have this ability. Not unelected groups of people. You make a point I see a lot. Science class is for science. Yet in fact it is this class that is teaching conclusions about origins. They are not just teaching science. They say these conclusions are from science. Well thats the point. Creationism demands equal time about these conclusions being made. Creationism says it does nothing less then anyone in figuring out about origins. YEC creationists would say nobody does science in origin issues because of its unique nature. If conclusions on origins are being taught as true in science class then creationism has the right to equal time and on the merits of investigation makes its case. If some ideas have presumptions in "religion" it doesn't matter as the objective is truth . What organized creationism does in its advocacy is what it wants to do in the schools. Weighing the facts before the same audience. Presumptions are being made on both sides about "religious" conclusions. Science class really is origin conclusion class. These conclusions being taught in a fre nation can be contended with.

Robert Byers said: Science class is for science. Yet in fact it is this class that is teaching conclusions about origins. They are not just teaching science.

They say these conclusions are from science. Well thats the point. Creationism demands equal time about these conclusions being made. Creationism says it does nothing less then anyone in figuring out about origins.

If conclusions on origins are being taught as true in science class then creationism has the right to equal time and on the merits of investigation makes its case.

Robert Byers, you still refuse to demonstrate how or why Creationism is supposed to be a science, let alone explain how or why Creationism is worthy of being taught in a science classroom.

And no, your constant whining that it is so does not count. But, you demonstrate that you are too stupid to ever realize that.

Keelyn said: Reality is not your strong suit, Booby. You keep right on demanding, but whining and wishful "thinking" are all you have left (squirm, you worm).

Robert Byers said: You make a point I see a lot. Science class is for science. Yet in fact it is this class that is teaching conclusions about origins.

Creationism demands equal time about these conclusions being made.

If conclusions on origins are being taught as true in science class then creationism has the right to equal time and on the merits of investigation makes its case.

Science class really is origin conclusion class.

FL said: Meanwhile, as Keelyn (adversarially) conceded, it HAS been over three years, and not ONE creationist in all of Bible-lovin' Louisiana, has violated the LSEA. Nor has a single creationist given ANY evolutinist any opportunity to go to court. Most interesting!

eric said:

FL said: Meanwhile, as Keelyn (adversarially) conceded, it HAS been over three years, and not ONE creationist in all of Bible-lovin' Louisiana, has violated the LSEA. Nor has a single creationist given ANY evolutinist any opportunity to go to court. Most interesting!

I'm confused as to your point. Before you left you kept claiming the LSEA was wonderful and good for the kids of Louisiana. Now you claim nobody is using it to teach creationism. Okay...are you trying to tell us those two things are related?

raven said:

Of course, people like our friend bugger-boy are the best advertisement for atheism there is. Who would want to be in a small room with people like this?

Worked for me. The fundie xians started me on my way out. Xians, creating atheists since 33 CE. Not the only one. Roughly 2 million people left US xianity last year. In Australia in the last 5 years, 1/4 of all xians changed their affiliation to None.

Henry said:

raven said:

Of course, people like our friend bugger-boy are the best advertisement for atheism there is. Who would want to be in a small room with people like this?

Worked for me. The fundie xians started me on my way out. Xians, creating atheists since 33 CE. Not the only one. Roughly 2 million people left US xianity last year. In Australia in the last 5 years, 1/4 of all xians changed their affiliation to None.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_population_growth In case you've missed it, there are over 2.30 billion Christians as of 2010.

eric said:

Robert Byers said: You make a point I see a lot. Science class is for science. Yet in fact it is this class that is teaching conclusions about origins.

Right. Most HS biology classes probably briefly disuss current scientific hypotheses for the OOL. They do not discuss non-scientific hypotheses for OOL, because discussion of non-scientific hypotheses do not belong in science classes. Teach them in philosophy or religion.

Creationism demands equal time about these conclusions being made.

Why should science classes give equal time to non-scientific hypotheses? And have you given any thought to how impractical that is? There are hundreds or thousands of origins hypotheses. You don't seriously want equal time for all of them; what you want is preferential treatment given to Christian fundamentalist hypotheses on origins. Which is both unconstitutional and bad pedagogy.

If conclusions on origins are being taught as true in science class then creationism has the right to equal time and on the merits of investigation makes its case.

AFAIK, nobody is teaching any specific origins hypothesis as 'true' because the question of exactly what happened is still open. But be that as it may, no such "right" exists. You don't have any more right to teach special creation in biology than you do to teach Moses' parting of the red sea in history class, or the biblical claim that the sun stood still in astromony class.

Science class really is origin conclusion class.

Do you even know what is in a HS biology class curriculum? Do you know how little of it is spent discussing this subject? No one with any real knowledge of US science curricula could honestly make that statement.

Robert Byers said:

eric said:

Robert Byers said: You make a point I see a lot. Science class is for science. Yet in fact it is this class that is teaching conclusions about origins.

Right. Most HS biology classes probably briefly disuss current scientific hypotheses for the OOL. They do not discuss non-scientific hypotheses for OOL, because discussion of non-scientific hypotheses do not belong in science classes. Teach them in philosophy or religion.

Creationism demands equal time about these conclusions being made.

Why should science classes give equal time to non-scientific hypotheses? And have you given any thought to how impractical that is? There are hundreds or thousands of origins hypotheses. You don't seriously want equal time for all of them; what you want is preferential treatment given to Christian fundamentalist hypotheses on origins. Which is both unconstitutional and bad pedagogy.

If conclusions on origins are being taught as true in science class then creationism has the right to equal time and on the merits of investigation makes its case.

AFAIK, nobody is teaching any specific origins hypothesis as 'true' because the question of exactly what happened is still open. But be that as it may, no such "right" exists. You don't have any more right to teach special creation in biology than you do to teach Moses' parting of the red sea in history class, or the biblical claim that the sun stood still in astromony class.

Science class really is origin conclusion class.

Do you even know what is in a HS biology class curriculum? Do you know how little of it is spent discussing this subject? No one with any real knowledge of US science curricula could honestly make that statement.

In North america I hear very little is taught about origins in science class. however evolution is taught enough to be seen as making conclusions about origins. Conclusions are taught with the understanding that the truth is being sought on these matters. This is presented as coming from study of evidence. Then they claim its scientific evidence. Well creationism studys the evidence to criticize evolution etc or support our ideas also to seek the truth. So we do no different then anyone else. We do as much or as little science. We make a case on the evidence and some presumptions. Again its about conclusions, like evolution, on origins that is the contention for what is being taught in science class. We are not opposing science but error in investigation. Non existent or bad science is our complaint along with our charge of error. We differ on the evidence and investigative competence behind interpretating the evidence.

Mr. Byers, how would you feel about teaching the Islamic version of creation in US science classrooms? Please do respond, because I want to understand this whole "equal time" thing.

Bobby,

In North america I hear very little is taught about origins in science class. however evolution is taught enough to be seen as making conclusions about origins.

Conclusions are taught with the understanding that the truth is being sought on these matters. This is presented as coming from study of evidence. Then its scientific evidence.

Well creationism does not study the evidence to criticize evolution etc or support their ideas also to seek the truth. So you do no science like anyone else. You do not as much or as little science whatsoevers. You do not make a case on the evidence but on some presumptions. If not, why are you never presenting any evidences? Exactly what be these so called evidences? All you are having is presumptions. Tell to us the evidences on which conclusion of origins you are making.

Again its about conclusions, like evolution, on origins that is the contention for what is being taught in science class. You are opposing science but having only error in investigation. Non existent or bad science is what you are be doing along with your charge of error. We differ on the evidence and investigative competence behind interpretating the evidence. We have the competences, you have not. How could you be telling experts they are not having competences when you are having not competences? You are just blowing smoke out of orifices regarding conclusions on origins.

DS said: Bobby, In North america I hear very little is taught about origins in science class. however evolution is taught enough to be seen as making conclusions about origins. Conclusions are taught with the understanding that the truth is being sought on these matters. This is presented as coming from study of evidence. Then its scientific evidence. Well creationism does not study the evidence to criticize evolution etc or support their ideas also to seek the truth. So you do no science like anyone else. You do not as much or as little science whatsoevers. You do not make a case on the evidence but on some presumptions. If not, why are you never presenting any evidences? Exactly what be these so called evidences? All you are having is presumptions. Tell to us the evidences on which conclusion of origins you are making. Again its about conclusions, like evolution, on origins that is the contention for what is being taught in science class. You are opposing science but having only error in investigation. Non existent or bad science is what you are be doing along with your charge of error. We differ on the evidence and investigative competence behind interpretating the evidence. We have the competences, you have not. How could you be telling experts they are not having competences when you are having not competences? You are just blowing smoke out of orifices regarding conclusions on origins.

Thanks Keelyn.

But I'm not necessarily just trying to make fun of Robert and I'm certainly not wasting my time trying to convince him of anything. I am actually trying to make a few points with the parody: if you think that your opinion is evidence, then you must be prepared to accept the opinion of someone else as being equally valid; if you you continually post about the importance of evidence, without ever actually presenting any, then others are under no obligation to provide any either; if the only argument you can muster is to mindlessly parrot the words that others use to validly criticize you, you should not expect any more consideration in return; if you can't be bothered to even attempt to use proper syntax and grammar, you shouldn't expect that anyone else will feel obligated to try either.

Oh well, at least he did provide some evidence for his claim, (on another thread), that if you haven't got a coherent thought in your head, you don't really need to use language properly to express yourself.

Robert Byers said: Well creationism studys the evidence to criticize evolution etc or support our ideas also to seek the truth.

So we do no different then anyone else.

Again its about conclusions, like evolution, on origins that is the contention for what is being taught in science class.

We are not opposing science but error in investigation. Non existent or bad science is our complaint along with our charge of error.

eric said: I mostly agree with your first two paragraphs.

Robert Byers said: Well creationism studys the evidence to criticize evolution etc or support our ideas also to seek the truth.

But you don't do it using the scientific methodology. Kids take science to learn how to do science and what science says about phenomena; not to learn how to do biblical exegesis or to learn what the bible says about certain phemonena.

So we do no different then anyone else.

The process by which you draw conclusions is different; its not science.

We are not opposing science but error in investigation. Non existent or bad science is our complaint along with our charge of error.

This is pure baloney and you know it.

What you oppose is kids learning anything that you believe contradicts the bible.

Creationism as a social movement has a clear record of first trying to ban evolution. When that didn't work, you tried to teach creationism alongside it. When that didn't work, you tried ID. And now finally, since ID didn't work, you have turned to calls for 'strengths and weaknesses' and 'academic freedom.' This is not "your complaint." Its the fourth in a long series of fall back positions.

Do you really think you are fooling anyone when you claim this new, fourth, position is what you wanted all along?

And on a personal note - why claim this? Why not just be honest? Nobody here believes you're really concerned about improving the quality of evolution education. If you could simply eliminate evolution from the curriculum altogether, you would. So why pretend otherwise?

mjcross42 said: Mr. Byers, how would you feel about teaching the Islamic version of creation in US science classrooms? Please do respond, because I want to understand this whole "equal time" thing.

eric said: I mostly agree with your first two paragraphs.

Robert Byers said: Well creationism studys the evidence to criticize evolution etc or support our ideas also to seek the truth.

But you don't do it using the scientific methodology. Kids take science to learn how to do science and what science says about phenomena; not to learn how to do biblical exegesis or to learn what the bible says about certain phemonena.

So we do no different then anyone else.

The process by which you draw conclusions is different; its not science. This is why lab courses are required in any good science curriculum; because science, at heart, is not rote memorization of a set of conclusions, its a practice. Kids are there to learn how to DO science. And assessing what the bible says on some matter is not how one does science.

Again its about conclusions, like evolution, on origins that is the contention for what is being taught in science class.

I disagree. I think its "about" the method and practice of science. That is what kids need to learn, and frankly, what universities probably care most about. Many important conclusions flow from that method, and its important to teach those too. But the "what it says" is best taught as flowing from and a natural consequence of "how to do."

We are not opposing science but error in investigation. Non existent or bad science is our complaint along with our charge of error.

This is pure baloney and you know it. What you oppose is kids learning anything that you believe contradicts the bible. Creationism as a social movement has a clear record of first trying to ban evolution. When that didn't work, you tried to teach creationism alongside it. When that didn't work, you tried ID. And now finally, since ID didn't work, you have turned to calls for 'strengths and weaknesses' and 'academic freedom.' This is not "your complaint." Its the fourth in a long series of fall back positions. Do you really think you are fooling anyone when you claim this new, fourth, position is what you wanted all along? And on a personal note - why claim this? Why not just be honest? Nobody here believes you're really concerned about improving the quality of evolution education. If you could simply eliminate evolution from the curriculum altogether, you would. So why pretend otherwise?

rObert is right this time. iT is only state censorship that stands in the way of people preaching their religion in science classes instead of the real science. nOw you know why it is so important to make sure that that doesn't change, no matter what the majority of people want.

And of course Robert is wrong about teaching the Islamic version of creationism. There are many people in this country that would support that. iF they were in the majority, according to rObert, they should be allowed to do so. The only reason he con see to prevent them from doing so is that they are currently not in the majority.

pErhaps one day rObert will see the consequences of his illogical position, pErhaps not. Until then he can go merrily on his way making claims without providing any evidence and everyone can completely ignore all of his opinions.

The joke is on you Byers. Your version of creation IS the Islamic version. Adam, Eve, Eden, talking serpents and eternal punishment for the sin of seeking knowledge. Consider yourself PWNED. Enjoy your attempts to foist Sharia educational principles on everyone. You have already failed, miserably.

Robert Byers said: Its only state censorship that stands in the way in schools.

Robert Byers said: Its only state censorship that stands in the way in schools.

raven said:

Robert Byers said: Its only state censorship that stands in the way in schools.

This is a false statement. Young earth creationism isn't even a xian doctrine. Most xians worldwide don't have a problem with evolution. It's a fundie death cult xian lie. It is a lot of taxpayers and parents among others who prevent YECism from being taught in our kid's science classes. Many of those are other xians from denominations that value the truth and science over lies.