Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

Youtube Comments tend to be a wasteland even among internet wastelands. Plus a video with over 2 million views in a few days will have comments moving too quickly to make headway.

Which is really frustrating, because I'm watching them update in real time and there's just so much misinformation in that stream.

Trouble with that last sentence is, we know that being a creationist (and some other varieties of crackpot for that matter) is no great barrier to being an engineer, often a quite good one. Now scientifically literate voters and taxpayers, OTOH....

Yes, that was an odd remark about engineers. Indeed, the fact that engineers tend to operate quite the opposite of evolution, rationally and with intent, means that an all-too-high fraction of engineers are creationists of some sort. Surely all function involves "hammers and nails"...

So I can't say that engineers need to know evolution for their jobs. But to keep from confusing what they make with what we find in life, they do need to know that life is different and why it is.

Glen Davidson

What's concerning is that Nye represents an increasingly prevalent view among materialists -- one that hopes to restrict freedom of expression for skeptics of Darwinian evolution. And I'm not just talking about the standard NCSE-style intolerance which opposes teaching about scientific views that challenge Darwinism in schools. I'm talking about Nye's unwillingness to endorse parents' rights to inculcate in their own children their doubts about Darwin. It's scary to think what the world would look like if these people had their way. Meanwhile, many in the scientific community continues to criticize the Darwinian paradigm. Bill Nye is welcome to believe and say whatever he wants about evolution. But perhaps Nye has some catching up to do, both in his scientific understanding of the current status of Darwinian evolution, and his commitment to liberal values like freedom of speech, freedom of inquiry, and parental rights. --from "Bill Nye the Intolerant Science Guy: 'Your Kids' Need to 'Believe in' Evolution," by Casey Luskin, Evolution News and Views, 8-27-2012. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/bill_nye_the_in_1063641.html

Perfectly stated incoherent, all the way.

Squeak! !!!

Glen Davidson

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Yes, that was an odd remark about engineers. Indeed, the fact that engineers tend to operate quite the opposite of evolution, rationally and with intent, means that an all-too-high fraction of engineers are creationists of some sort. Surely all function involves "hammers and nails"... So I can't say that engineers need to know evolution for their jobs. But to keep from confusing what they make with what we find in life, they do need to know that life is different and why it is. Glen Davidson

FL said: Bill Nye The Fisked Guy

What's concerning is that Nye represents an increasingly prevalent view among materialists -- one that hopes to restrict freedom of expression for skeptics of Darwinian evolution. And I'm not just talking about the standard NCSE-style intolerance which opposes teaching about scientific views that challenge Darwinism in schools. I'm talking about Nye's unwillingness to endorse parents' rights to inculcate in their own children their doubts about Darwin. It's scary to think what the world would look like if these people had their way. Meanwhile, many in the scientific community continues to criticize the Darwinian paradigm. Bill Nye is welcome to believe and say whatever he wants about evolution. But perhaps Nye has some catching up to do, both in his scientific understanding of the current status of Darwinian evolution, and his commitment to liberal values like freedom of speech, freedom of inquiry, and parental rights. --from "Bill Nye the Intolerant Science Guy: 'Your Kids' Need to 'Believe in' Evolution," by Casey Luskin, Evolution News and Views, 8-27-2012. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/bill_nye_the_in_1063641.html

Perfectly stated, all the way. FL

FL said: Bill Nye The Fisked Guy

What's concerning is that Nye represents an increasingly prevalent view among materialists -- one that hopes to restrict freedom of expression for skeptics of Darwinian evolution. And I'm not just talking about the standard NCSE-style intolerance which opposes teaching about scientific views that challenge Darwinism in schools. I'm talking about Nye's unwillingness to endorse parents' rights to inculcate in their own children their doubts about Darwin. It's scary to think what the world would look like if these people had their way. Meanwhile, many in the scientific community continues to criticize the Darwinian paradigm. Bill Nye is welcome to believe and say whatever he wants about evolution. But perhaps Nye has some catching up to do, both in his scientific understanding of the current status of Darwinian evolution, and his commitment to liberal values like freedom of speech, freedom of inquiry, and parental rights. --from "Bill Nye the Intolerant Science Guy: 'Your Kids' Need to 'Believe in' Evolution," by Casey Luskin, Evolution News and Views, 8-27-2012. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/bill_nye_the_in_1063641.html

Perfectly stated, all the way. FL

What's concerning is that Nye represents an increasingly prevalent view among materialists -- one that hopes to restrict freedom of expression for skeptics of Darwinian evolution.

And I'm not just talking about the standard NCSE-style intolerance which opposes teaching about scientific views that challenge Darwinism in schools. I'm talking about Nye's unwillingness to endorse parents' rights to inculcate in their own children their doubts about Darwin.

It's scary to think what the world would look like if these people had their way.

Meanwhile, many in the scientific community continues to criticize the Darwinian paradigm.

Bill Nye is welcome to believe and say whatever he wants about evolution. But perhaps Nye has some catching up to do, both in his scientific understanding of the current status of Darwinian evolution, and his commitment to liberal values like freedom of speech, freedom of inquiry, and parental rights.

Luskin, as always, is lying.

There is no scientific explanation of the origin of the species other than evolution. There is no loss of consensus among scientists about the Theory of Evolution. There are no scientific views that challenge evolution. There is no dissent from acceptance of it, among relevant scientists. What the world would look like if science alone were taught as science in the public schools is the way it looks, pretty generally, bating the existence of Freshwaters here and there, and an understandable reluctance to annoy religious fanatics like FL, because religious fanatics are dangerous. But it is Luskin, not Nye, who wants radical change.

FL has battened on "information". He's ten or more years behind the curve. The DI thought of that one further back than that. But it's another lie. Natural systems create information without direction or purpose. Life is a particularly spectacular instance of the effect, but there is no reason to think that it is anything more. Claims of supernatural action are gap claims, and the gaps have been shrinking steadily ever since science began investigating natural phenomena, and they continue to shrink. Claims of a supernatural origin for life, if that is all they are, concede evolution and common descent.

Which is why FL shouldn't be quoting Luskin and the DI with such approval. Of course that approval will last precisely as long as it takes FL's little sect to establish their longed-for theocracy. Then it would be Luskin and Wells to the stake with the rest of us. They're just as much in apostasy as I am.

Luskin's a fool not to know this. But a fool is foolish in many ways. What's important is that Luskin is a liar.

I'm a Christian, and an evolution "enthusiast". I'll tell you why Bill Nye is right, and why Creationism, or ID, or any other such claptrap should not be taught alongside science in schools: because doing so makes the Christian faith look ridiculous by comparison. Kind of like judging your wife solely by her ability to bench press 250 pounds -- she ain't there for weight lifting. When I read of right-wing nuts demanding "teach the controversy" or some other crap, I wince because they are doing our faith great harm.

Christianity's great value -- and it is substantial, if done right -- is spiritual. Evolution tells a fantastic story: I call it God's finest hour. I pity the Christians who cannot, or will not, see this. And I measure the shallowness of their faith by their reluctance to face this.

Indeed, the fact that engineers tend to operate quite the opposite of evolution, rationally and with intent, means that an all-too-high fraction of engineers are creationists of some sort.

I think what’s operating here is a recruitment function. What fields CAN you go into comfortably, if you are scientifically inclined but saddled with indelible creationists beliefs? You’re pretty much limited to “by the numbers” fields where you have an intense need to understahd how things work but no need to understand why they work that way. So we see creationists of this sort moving heavily into careers as engineers or physicians, rather than theorists or biologists.

SteveP. said: But we know science is in the business of the 'how' and not the 'why'. Different animals. Curious why supporters of ID understand the difference but design deniers do not.

emeans said: Christianity's great value -- and it is substantial, if done right -- is spiritual. Evolution tells a fantastic story: I call it God's finest hour. I pity the Christians who cannot, or will not, see this. And I measure the shallowness of their faith by their reluctance to face this.

Steve, as usual, is riffing on the variant definitions of English words, not anything that has substance in reality. He is doing this because he has nothing to say about reality, and has long ago retreated into mumbo-jumbo.

The word "why" has two related but separate meanings. One is "with what cause". The other is "with what intent". Flint used the word in the former sense. Steve is imputing to him the latter.

It really is that simple, a straightforward piece of verbal sleight-of-hand, done, as sleight-of-hand always is, to deceive and mislead. It is playing with words, and Steve is either too fuddled or too dishonest, or both, to admit it.

As Nye correctly points out, if you hold your presuppositions inviolate and are willing to ignore all evidence to the contrary, if you are willing to remain willfully ignorant in order to cling to your cherished beliefs, if you are willing to live in a universe that is ultimately inexplicable and not amenable to human understanding, if your are determined to accept the easy answer that explains nothing and predicts nothing, the least you could do is not demand that your offspring be handicapped by the same form of myopathy.

Of course every parent has the right to saddle his offspring with any religious baggage they choose. The point is that, just because it is your right, doesn't mean that it is a good idea. There may still be some vocations that they can become competent in, but there will be many doors that are forever closed by the inability to comprehend and accept the methods and conclusions of science. The trolls here adequate demonstrate the absolute inability to comprehend, let alone honor, the concept of evidence. This is your brain on creationism. What a waste of the awesome potential conferred by three billion years of evolution.

emeans said: I'm a Christian, and an evolution "enthusiast". I'll tell you why Bill Nye is right, and why Creationism, or ID, or any other such claptrap should not be taught alongside science in schools: because doing so makes the Christian faith look ridiculous by comparison. Kind of like judging your wife solely by her ability to bench press 250 pounds -- she ain't there for weight lifting. When I read of right-wing nuts demanding "teach the controversy" or some other crap, I wince because they are doing our faith great harm. Christianity's great value -- and it is substantial, if done right -- is spiritual. Evolution tells a fantastic story: I call it God's finest hour. I pity the Christians who cannot, or will not, see this. And I measure the shallowness of their faith by their reluctance to face this.

As we all know, appeal to popularity settles things.

Case in point. Shallow indeed.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/bill_nye_the_in_1063641.html What's concerning is that Nye represents an increasingly prevalent view among materialists

-- one that hopes to restrict freedom of expression for skeptics of Darwinian evolution.

And I'm not just talking about the standard NCSE-style intolerance which opposes teaching about scientific views that challenge Darwinism in schools.

I'm talking about Nye's unwillingness to endorse parents' rights to inculcate in their own children their doubts about Darwin. It's scary to think what the world would look like if these people had their way.

Meanwhile, many in the scientific community continues to criticize the Darwinian paradigm.

Robert Byers The Liar Lied: Yet the modern threat to the old establishment has been done by tiny numbers of ID and YEC movers and shakers. It just proves to us how soft the empire is.

Happy Darwin Day? By: Jonathan Wells The Washington Times February 12, 2009 ...Unfortunately, once in power Darwinism (like Marxism) tolerates no dissent. As the 2008 movie "Expelled" documented, scientists and teachers who criticize Darwinism risk ostracism, character assassination and termination of their employment. School boards that encourage students to learn the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolutionary theory are besieged by militant atheists who do not want students to question Darwinism.

Meanwhile, many in the scientific community continues to criticize the Darwinian paradigm.

Tenncrain said: Once again conflating methodological materialism with philosophical materialism. Scientists use methodological materialism/naturalism. Methodological naturalism simply does not comment one way or another about supernatural forces. It can neither support nor reject the supernatural. Methodological naturalism only says anything that might be supernatural is outside the realm of science. Methodological naturalism is used by scientists that are both theists and non-theists. Methodological naturalism is different from the naturalism used by non-theists outside of science which is philosophical naturalism (the unscientific belief that there is absolutely no supernatural).

The Story the New York Times found was Unfit to Print Casey Luskin September 28, 2007 11:55 AM | Permalink Yesterday Rob Crowther recognized that Cornelia Dean and the New York Times are puffing Darwinism in an article about Expelled titled, "Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin." This front page New York Times news-article blatantly editorializes that, "[t]here is no credible scientific challenge to the idea that evolution explains the diversity of life on earth." But that isn't the real story here. If Cornelia Dean and the New York Times were to report the real story, they would have instead reported: "There is no credible scientific challenge to the idea that evolution explains the diversity of life on earth that goes unpunished."

Looks like Ken Ham has gotten a reply to Bill Nye up.

Forgive me if I don't like directly to his video, but I figured you'd all appreciate a skeptical view of his rambling. Besides, the Sensuous Curmudgeon has a link to Ham's video himself.

I'll not that this is not the first time that AIG has taken a shot at Bill Nye. And that bastard Ham complains about "ad-hom" attacks?

Speaking of cartoons, anyone remember this? Sadly, most of the cartoons have been taken down, but fortunately, there is one site that stored some of them.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Yes, that was an odd remark about engineers. Indeed, the fact that engineers tend to operate quite the opposite of evolution, rationally and with intent, means that an all-too-high fraction of engineers are creationists of some sort. Surely all function involves "hammers and nails"... So I can't say that engineers need to know evolution for their jobs. But to keep from confusing what they make with what we find in life, they do need to know that life is different and why it is. Glen Davidson

Nye is just engaging in pure propaganda. It is clear that ID has no negative ramifications for kid's science education.

He, like Flint would like to replace religion with science as the explainer of explanations.

But ironically, to do so, he will need to co-opt all the religious bells and whistles to make any headway.

Just ask the NSCE.

I will grant you that most do not understand it, but neither does the general public.

MememicBottleneck said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Yes, that was an odd remark about engineers. Indeed, the fact that engineers tend to operate quite the opposite of evolution, rationally and with intent, means that an all-too-high fraction of engineers are creationists of some sort. Surely all function involves "hammers and nails"... So I can't say that engineers need to know evolution for their jobs. But to keep from confusing what they make with what we find in life, they do need to know that life is different and why it is. Glen Davidson

I would like to know where this data on engineers being creationists comes from. I've been an engineer for over 30 years. I've worked with hundreds of engineers across three different companies, and in all that time and population, I've known exactly 2 that are YECs (I currently share an office with one of them). Of the engineers I currently work with at least half are atheists. Except for the 2 YECs, I've not known any others that would deny evolution. I will grant you that most do not understand it, but neither does the general public.

MememicBottleneck said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Yes, that was an odd remark about engineers. Indeed, the fact that engineers tend to operate quite the opposite of evolution, rationally and with intent, means that an all-too-high fraction of engineers are creationists of some sort. Surely all function involves "hammers and nails"... So I can't say that engineers need to know evolution for their jobs. But to keep from confusing what they make with what we find in life, they do need to know that life is different and why it is. Glen Davidson

I would like to know where this data on engineers being creationists comes from. I've been an engineer for over 30 years. I've worked with hundreds of engineers across three different companies, and in all that time and population, I've known exactly 2 that are YECs (I currently share an office with one of them). Of the engineers I currently work with at least half are atheists. Except for the 2 YECs, I've not known any others that would deny evolution. I will grant you that most do not understand it, but neither does the general public.

MememicBottleneck said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Yes, that was an odd remark about engineers. Indeed, the fact that engineers tend to operate quite the opposite of evolution, rationally and with intent, means that an all-too-high fraction of engineers are creationists of some sort. Surely all function involves "hammers and nails"... So I can't say that engineers need to know evolution for their jobs. But to keep from confusing what they make with what we find in life, they do need to know that life is different and why it is. Glen Davidson

I would like to know where this data on engineers being creationists comes from. I've been an engineer for over 30 years. I've worked with hundreds of engineers across three different companies, and in all that time and population, I've known exactly 2 that are YECs (I currently share an office with one of them). Of the engineers I currently work with at least half are atheists. Except for the 2 YECs, I've not known any others that would deny evolution. I will grant you that most do not understand it, but neither does the general public.

SteveP. said: So maybe this 'evolution denial is bad for mankind' meme would be better left lost in translation.

SteveP. said: Isn't that the issue? If most engineers (in mememicbottleneck's experience anyway) don't understand it, and most of the general public doesn't understand it, how could it have an adverse impact on peoples's lives in particular or society in general as Nye and some posters here imply and/or assert? If it were true, we could quantify how evolution ignorance negatively affects prison populations, infant mortality, unemployment, and myriad add other gauges of the quality of human activity. But I guess we would first have to go down the rabbit hole of defining quality. From what I understand, Persig did not come out of that rabbit hole unscathed. So maybe this 'evolution denial is bad for mankind' meme would be better left lost in translation. For sanity's sake, of course.

I will grant you that most do not understand it, but neither does the general public.

From this side of the ocean, I find it a little difficult to follow the present thread.

First of all, we could take Nye's statement and substitute "theory of gravitation" for "evolution". Who in the world would ever advocate for parental rights to teach children that an heavy body falls to the ground because it wants so (the more the will, the more the weight)? A parent willing to undergo that path would probably end up under close inspection by social security services (or whatever the American equivalent is).

That opens up the path to my second point. Here in Europe, as far as I know, nobody would ever question the right of the State to establish and enforce standard education curricula. In Italy education is compulsory up to 16 years of age: a parent withholding his/her children from the school system would face criminal charges (no less that a parent denying food or proper medication to a child). Yet, nobody has ever considered this fact (and the implied corollary of being exposed to a proper standard science course) a violation of personal liberties: quite the opposite, it is regarded as one of the major benefit of living in a free (and wealthy) country.

Of course, there are limitations to this: the State does not mandate any form of "standard religious education", so everyone is free to send his/her children to religious schools (as long as those schools follow the standard curricula for science, history, Italian language and so on).

IBelieveInGod said: This coming from the guy, who didn't know how to get a valid marriage license, or maybe he did something worse. If you watch the video of Mr Nye as posted here, you should be able to see the great contradiction made my Mr. Nye. He claims that the US is the most technologically advance country, yes we are the most technologically advanced country, even though we don't believe in evolution, even though our children through the generations have been taught creationism by their parents. There you have it actually we are the most technologically advanced country in the world, funny how Bill debunks his own argument in this video:):):)

SteveP. said: Nye is just engaging in pure propaganda. It is clear that ID has no negative ramifications for kid's science education.

But we know science is in the business of the ‘how’ and not the ‘why’. Different animals.

SteveP. said: Nye is just engaging in pure propaganda.

It is clear that ID has no negative ramifications for kid's science education.

He, like Flint would like to replace religion with science as the explainer of explanations.

But ironically, to do so, he will need to co-opt all the religious bells and whistles to make any headway.

Just ask the NSCE.

IBelieveInGod The Liar Lied: This coming from the guy, who didn't know how to get a valid marriage license, or maybe he did something worse. If you watch the video of Mr Nye as posted here, you should be able to see the great contradiction made my Mr. Nye. He claims that the US is the most technologically advance country, yes we are the most technologically advanced country, even though we don't believe in evolution, even though our children through the generations have been taught creationism by their parents. There you have it actually we are the most technologically advanced country in the world, funny how Bill debunks his own argument in this video:):):)

You creationists really need to get together on what you're claiming.

Is the majority of the US taught creationism and we're still technologically advanced or is creationism denied, censored, punished and expelled?

Are there many engineers and scientists who promote and use creationism in their work or are they denied, censored, punished, and expelled?

Let me add this to the mix and it should help you see what the actual issue is. Evolution is science. We know this because it is falsifiable, makes predictions, uses the scientific method both for support and for extensions. Creationism (including ID) is a cultural meme. We know this because it doesn't do anything that is scientific and the proponents spend them time with thought experiments, semiotics, and word games. The proponents of creationism (witness SteveP, IBIG, Robert, etc) make up stuff, do not allow questions, don't provide answers when presented with questions and have a poor understanding of reality.

That's why an engineer or doctor (which is mostly an engineer for biological organisms) can be a creationist. They are taught the science that the need to use in their daily work and then they can also have their cultural imprinting. Since the two (science and culture) don't overlap, there's no problem for them.

They can't use knowledge from creationism in their work because there is no knowledge from creationism. It's all made up, it's inconsistent, and it's useless.

I would submit that the same applies to religious scientists. They can be scientists in their work, but in their cultural they can be religious. Atheism is the exact same thing. It's a cultural meme, not a method for accomplishing tasks or gaining knowledge.

Everyone here is arguing past each other because one group is supporting science using science. The other group is supporting cultural memes using the methods of that meme (imprinting, personal anecdotes, speaking with authority, denying questions, etc).

ASIDE: Yes, almost all of the creationists I'm aware of who claim 'scientific' backgrounds are engineers of some kind. The few exceptions (Behe and Johnson) are creationists in spite of the knowledge gained (which means they are liars) and Johnson became a biochemist specifically to find evidence to support creationism.

Robin said:

SteveP. said: It is clear that ID has no negative ramifications for kid's science education.

How exactly is this clear? Where's the evidence?

SteveP. said: He dreams of the day when science replaces religion as the go-to guy for ultimate answers.

But we know science is in the business of the 'how' and not the 'why'. Different animals. Curious why supporters of ID understand the difference but design deniers do not.

Since ID answers “why” and science answers “how,” then you seem to be fully in agreement that ID is not science. Yes?

Since you recognize that ID gives no “how” response to speciation, origins of life, or any other science question...

How did inanimate nature write: (1) the conceptual instructions needed to organize metabolism? (2) a language/operating system needed to symbolically represent, record and replicate those instructions? (3) a bijective coding scheme (a one-to-one correspondence of symbol meaning) with planned redundancy so as to reduce noise pollution between triplet codon “block code” symbols (“bytes”) and amino acid symbols? We could even add a fourth question. How did inanimate nature design and engineer (4) a cell [Turing machine? (Turing, 1936)] capable of implementing those coded instructions? –from “Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life”, J.T. Trevors, D.L. Abel, Cell Biology International 28 (2004).

MememicBottleneck said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Yes, that was an odd remark about engineers. Indeed, the fact that engineers tend to operate quite the opposite of evolution, rationally and with intent, means that an all-too-high fraction of engineers are creationists of some sort. Surely all function involves "hammers and nails"... So I can't say that engineers need to know evolution for their jobs. But to keep from confusing what they make with what we find in life, they do need to know that life is different and why it is. Glen Davidson

I would like to know where this data on engineers being creationists comes from. I've been an engineer for over 30 years. I've worked with hundreds of engineers across three different companies, and in all that time and population, I've known exactly 2 that are YECs (I currently share an office with one of them). Of the engineers I currently work with at least half are atheists. Except for the 2 YECs, I've not known any others that would deny evolution. I will grant you that most do not understand it, but neither does the general public.

Well, that’s scientists, not the general public.

FL said: Odd that you should say that, Eric. On the Bathroom Wall, we're all waiting for somebody--ANYBODY--to show how evolution (as in prebiotic chemical evolution) gives ANY "how" response to the following published "origins-of-life" issue.

If naturalistic evolution can’t give a “how” to these specific questions–and honestly, it hasn’t done so–this necessarily means (according to your stated logic), that evolution is not science. True?

Once you agree that, since creationism and ID address “why” and not “how” questions

FL said:

Since you recognize that ID gives no “how” response to speciation, origins of life, or any other science question...

Odd that you should say that, Eric. On the Bathroom Wall, we're all waiting for somebody--ANYBODY--to show how evolution (as in prebiotic chemical evolution) gives ANY "how" response to the following published "origins-of-life" issue.

How did inanimate nature write: (1) the conceptual instructions needed to organize metabolism? (2) a language/operating system needed to symbolically represent, record and replicate those instructions? (3) a bijective coding scheme (a one-to-one correspondence of symbol meaning) with planned redundancy so as to reduce noise pollution between triplet codon “block code” symbols (“bytes”) and amino acid symbols? We could even add a fourth question. How did inanimate nature design and engineer (4) a cell [Turing machine? (Turing, 1936)] capable of implementing those coded instructions? –from “Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life”, J.T. Trevors, D.L. Abel, Cell Biology International 28 (2004).

If naturalistic evolution can't give a "how" to these specific questions--and honestly, it hasn't done so--this necessarily means (according to your stated logic), that evolution is not science. True? FL

FL said:

Once you agree that, since creationism and ID address “why” and not “how” questions

Oh, I've agreed to no such thing. All I know is that there's some clearly specified unpaid bills on the evolution side. If evolution is science, when can we look forward to mechanistic payment? FL

harold said: Why does the designer reach in and make malaria parasites more resistant to drugs? ID doesn't answer that, either.

FL said:

Once you agree that, since creationism and ID address “why” and not “how” questions

Oh, I've agreed to no such thing. All I know is that there's some clearly specified unpaid bills on the evolution side. If evolution is science, when can we look forward to mechanistic payment? FL

FL said:

Since you recognize that ID gives no “how” response to speciation, origins of life, or any other science question...

Odd that you should say that, Eric. On the Bathroom Wall, we're all waiting for somebody--ANYBODY--to show how evolution (as in prebiotic chemical evolution) gives ANY "how" response to the following published "origins-of-life" issue.

How did inanimate nature write: (1) the conceptual instructions needed to organize metabolism? (2) a language/operating system needed to symbolically represent, record and replicate those instructions? (3) a bijective coding scheme (a one-to-one correspondence of symbol meaning) with planned redundancy so as to reduce noise pollution between triplet codon “block code” symbols (“bytes”) and amino acid symbols? We could even add a fourth question. How did inanimate nature design and engineer (4) a cell [Turing machine? (Turing, 1936)] capable of implementing those coded instructions? –from “Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life”, J.T. Trevors, D.L. Abel, Cell Biology International 28 (2004).

If naturalistic evolution can't give a "how" to these specific questions--and honestly, it hasn't done so--this necessarily means (according to your stated logic), that evolution is not science. True? FL

FL said:

Once you agree that, since creationism and ID address “why” and not “how” questions

Oh, I've agreed to no such thing. All I know is that there's some clearly specified unpaid bills on the evolution side. If evolution is science, when can we look forward to mechanistic payment? FL

apokryltaros said:

Robin said:

SteveP. said: It is clear that ID has no negative ramifications for kid's science education.

How exactly is this clear? Where's the evidence?

How is teaching children to be science-hating bigots For Jesus not negative or harmful to children's science education? Saying that Intelligent Design has no negative consequences for science education is exactly like saying that cyanide is a vital nutrient and should be made a mandatory nutritional supplement. Not that SteveP or his fellow bigots give a damn, though.

harold said: I've seen this "engineers are a bunch of creationists" meme too many times.

FL said:

Once you agree that, since creationism and ID address “why” and not “how” questions

Oh, I've agreed to no such thing. All I know is that there's some clearly specified unpaid bills on the evolution side. If evolution is science, when can we look forward to mechanistic payment? FL

terenzioiltroll said: Who in the world has ever suggested that: "if it is not NP Complete, then it is not science, therefore MAGIC!"?

As has been pointed out several times already FL, your questions are meaningless.

Not only are the not scientific, but they are, literally, without meaning. There are so many errors it's hard to even start. I mean, even the first word is WRONG.

That's right, in you 'list of questions'* "How" is wrong. Any competent scientist will tell you that we will never know "how" life began. The question you should be asking is "Can". As in "Can life arise from non-living things?" and so far, in over 50 years of research, there has never been a single experiment that categorically says that life and the components thereof cannot arise from prebiotic matter and reactions.

Would you like to move on to the next word (which, arguably, is wrong as well)? The 3rd, 4th, and 5th words are completely and utterly wrong as well.

And we haven't even gotten to the actual thing you're asking about yet and there are so many incorrect premises to your questions that, as I said, they are literally without meaning. You have put English words together in a sentence and that sentence is completely meaningless. Talk about the monkey on a typewriter...

I'll be happy to do a thorough critique pointing out all of the mistakes you made, but you have some questions you need to answer from quite a while ago first. Let me know when you're ready.

* Note that you are expecting answers, yet you have questions from me that are almost three years old waiting for answers.

Hurricane and storm surge forecasts come from scientists and engineers. If people believe that atmospheric scientists are perpetrating hoaxes, as Rick Santorum claimed about global warming, then those same people are likely to ignore mandatory evacuation warnings when Hurricane Isaac is approaching and need to be rescued (or die).

You cannot be a climate scientist and believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. You cannot make any sense out of the Greenland and Antarctic ice cores if you think they were formed by a lot of snow over a couple of hundred years. Even the shorter Greenland cores contain tens of thousands of counted annual layers.

I have seen engineers get stuck on the way they think about a problem, and their effectiveness suffers. Getting stuck for a whole week or month really hurts a project! Kind of like Kurt Wise getting stuck on thinking the Bible specifies a young earth. Professor Wise, you are wrong; and there is a whole world of discovery and accomplishment waiting for you out there if you would just listen to Glen Morton and Ken Miller. It's still not too late.

ogremk5 said: * Note that (FL) expecting answers, yet you have questions from me that are almost three years old waiting for answers.

He gets his “scientific” proof of things from the television show Unsolved Mysteries. That is how he “proved” that faith healing works.

terenzioiltroll said: Here in Europe, as far as I know, nobody would ever question the right of the State to establish and enforce standard education curricula. In Italy education is compulsory up to 16 years of age: a parent withholding his/her children from the school system would face criminal charges (no less that a parent denying food or proper medication to a child).

there are no schools that offer ID courses. Not even any private Christian ones of which I’m aware.

And by the way, for those readers who may be searching for a good university to obtain a Bachelor of Science degree in molecular and celluar biology, here's an excellent choice:

http://www.cedarville.edu/Academics/Science-and-Mathematics/Molecular-and-Cellular-Biology.aspx

FL

FL said: Try the Science and Religion master's degree at Biola University...

terenzioiltroll said: From this side of the ocean, I find it a little difficult to follow the present thread. First of all, we could take Nye's statement and substitute "theory of gravitation" for "evolution". Who in the world would ever advocate for parental rights to teach children that an heavy body falls to the ground because it wants so (the more the will, the more the weight)? A parent willing to undergo that path would probably end up under close inspection by social security services (or whatever the American equivalent is).

Here in Europe, as far as I know, nobody would ever question the right of the State to establish and enforce standard education curricula.

How did inanimate nature write:

(1) the conceptual instructions needed to organize metabolism?

(2) a language/operating system needed to symbolically represent, record and replicate those instructions?

(3) a bijective coding scheme (a one-to-one correspondence of symbol meaning) with planned redundancy so as to reduce noise pollution between triplet codon “block code” symbols (“bytes”) and amino acid symbols?

We could even add a fourth question. How did inanimate nature design and engineer (4) a cell [Turing machine? (Turing, 1936)] capable of implementing those coded instructions?

Among the many reasons that children shouldn’t be taught ID/creationism is because the fruits of the sectarian mindset that buys into this junk science also produces legislators who want to legislate women’s health issues.

We have the likes of House Republican Todd Akin of Louisiana running for a seat in the Senate who thinks that “legitimate rape” cannot produce a pregnancy because the “woman’s body shuts down during a ‘legitimate’ rape.”

The upshot of this kind of thinking is that women who get pregnant from a rape must not have been “legitimately” raped but instead must have enjoyed the sex and were inviting it. This is a brutal insult to women who have suffered not only the physical abuse, but must then suffer the psychological abuse of stupid men who have never learned about reproductive sex, yet think of women as only stupid, deceitful sex objects.

This is sectarian fundamentalism at its worst, and it is manifested in the gullible acceptance of fake science in order to justify sectarian beliefs. If it stopped at the exit to their churches, most people wouldn’t care; sectarians are protected by the First Amendment no matter how stupid they are.

But unfortunately, sectarianism of that brand seeks to use the force of secular law to impose its ignorance and bigotry on everyone else. Whenever these idiots gain political power, they introduce a flurry of legislation that imposes their junk science on everyone while all the most important issues of governance get ignored.

When sectarians such as FL can’t even get middle school science right, their ignorant bigotry affects everyone.

What Mike said, but even more so... when people are taught not to think, not to ask questions, then the power goes to those who speak the loudest with some kind of cultural authority (preachers for example). What you end up with is what we had in the Middle Ages, a small, elite ruling class with education, power, and money and a large, totally ignorant working class with no authority even over their own bodies...

Exactly like what the US Republican Party is advocating for right now. Women do not control their own bodies. Citizens of the US should not be educated in critical thinking. Citizens of the US should shut up and not ask any embarrassing questions. "We" know what's best for you. etc. etc. etc.

Coincidence? I think not. And this is what people like FL want. They think (they are wrong), but they think that they will be part of the ruling class. Not realizing that the ruling class barely plays lip service to religion. It's all about money and power and FL and the other creationists don't have any. They are tools to be used and discarded by the power hungry.

FL said:

Once you agree that, since creationism and ID address “why” and not “how” questions

Oh, I've agreed to no such thing. All I know is that there's some clearly specified unpaid bills on the evolution side. If evolution is science, when can we look forward to mechanistic payment? FL

Mike Elzinga said: Among the many reasons that children shouldn’t be taught ID/creationism is because the fruits of the sectarian mindset that buys into this junk science also produces legislators who want to legislate women’s health issues. We have the likes of House Republican Todd Akin of Louisiana running for a seat in the Senate who thinks that “legitimate rape” cannot produce a pregnancy because the “woman’s body shuts down during a ‘legitimate’ rape.” The upshot of this kind of thinking is that women who get pregnant from a rape must not have been “legitimately” raped but instead must have enjoyed the sex and were inviting it. This is a brutal insult to women who have suffered not only the physical abuse, but must then suffer the psychological abuse of stupid men who have never learned about reproductive sex, yet think of women as only stupid, deceitful sex objects. This is sectarian fundamentalism at its worst, and it is manifested in the gullible acceptance of fake science in order to justify sectarian beliefs. If it stopped at the exit to their churches, most people wouldn’t care; sectarians are protected by the First Amendment no matter how stupid they are. But unfortunately, sectarianism of that brand seeks to use the force of secular law to impose its ignorance and bigotry on everyone else. Whenever these idiots gain political power, they introduce a flurry of legislation that imposes their junk science on everyone while all the most important issues of governance get ignored. When sectarians such as FL can’t even get middle school science right, their ignorant bigotry affects everyone.

Keelyn said: I agree fully with everything you said, Mike, but I just wanted to make the correction that Akin is actually running in Missouri, not Louisiana. Although, most of the representatives in La probably are in close agreement with Akin on these issues.

tomh said: So homeschooling is forbidden in Europe?

Here in the US, children are considered property of the parents, subject to whatever type of upbringing suits the parents, with only physical abuse proscribed.

Religion has such a stranglehold on the US culture, administered through the legal system, that there is little chance there will be any change in the foreseeable future.

FL said:

He gets his “scientific” proof of things from the television show Unsolved Mysteries. That is how he “proved” that faith healing works.

Nope, I only provided evidence of one reported healing. I provided an eyewitness summary (mine) of the televised (including date of broadcast) public testimony of two specific parents and one child, supported by actual televised before-and-after MRI photographs examined and evaluated on-camera by a doctor NOT associated with the family, followed by the sctual name and address and website of the ordained Catholic Priest who prayed for the child's healing. That was followed by a second public testimony, that is, I found and quoted in this forum an Internet posting from one of the parents dated approximately one year ago, openly testifying that their daughter was STILL healed of the brain tumor--no recurrence--after the initial prayer by the identified Catholic Priest (Fr. Ralph Di Orio), and that the child in question, Christina Umowski, was a healthy adult now. NO scientific evidences (in fact no evidence at all!), nor any published or broadcast or online testimonies, nor any professionally-based debunking evaluations such as James Randi or CSICOP, were ever provided by yourself or any other Panda in refutation of the above evidence broadcast on UM. Go figure, Mike. Go figure. **** (By the way, Phhht, you came up as totally empty as Mike did on that one. Atheism is so utterly pitiful.) FL

FL said:

He gets his “scientific” proof of things from the television show Unsolved Mysteries. That is how he “proved” that faith healing works.

Nope, I only provided evidence of one reported healing. I provided an eyewitness summary (mine) of the televised (including date of broadcast) public testimony of two specific parents and one child, supported by actual televised before-and-after MRI photographs examined and evaluated on-camera by a doctor NOT associated with the family, followed by the sctual name and address and website of the ordained Catholic Priest who prayed for the child's healing. That was followed by a second public testimony, that is, I found and quoted in this forum an Internet posting from one of the parents dated approximately one year ago, openly testifying that their daughter was STILL healed of the brain tumor--no recurrence--after the initial prayer by the identified Catholic Priest (Fr. Ralph Di Orio), and that the child in question, Christina Umowski, was a healthy adult now. NO scientific evidences (in fact no evidence at all!), nor any published or broadcast or online testimonies, nor any professionally-based debunking evaluations such as James Randi or CSICOP, were ever provided by yourself or any other Panda in refutation of the above evidence broadcast on UM. Go figure, Mike. Go figure. **** (By the way, Phhht, you came up as totally empty as Mike did on that one. Atheism is so utterly pitiful.) FL

He is an eyewitness of this TV show, y’all! Give him a break, this must be real!

FL said: So, what is your evidence against the content of that televised account? What's your refutation of those MRI photos? NOTHING AT ALL.

FL said:

there are no schools that offer ID courses. Not even any private Christian ones of which I’m aware.

Then you may want to stop and do a bit more searching . Try the Science and Religion master's degree at Biola University, on the ID side. http://www.biola.edu/academics/sas/scienceandreligion/program/ FL

CSSR 651 – Intelligent Design Seminar In-depth focus on intelligent design to enable students to appraise the current debate on this issue. Units: 1 to 2 Notes: Two units are required for MASR students.

Since this guy can't explain anything and refuses to answer even the simplest scientific questions, the actual score is more like one hundred and twenty seven to 1/2. TV shows don't really count as evidence. If they do, then I can name hundreds that present evidence for evolution, so Floyd loses yet again.

Look, this fool has spammed up the bathroom wall for five hundred pages with his unique brand of ignorance mixed with arrogance. He is emotionally and intellectual incapable of discussing any real science. Ban him to the bathroom wall where he belongs before he trashes up every thread on the site. If you don't you will get what you asked for.

At least he is a prime example of the point that Bill was making. He cannot seem to reason logically for even an instant, has absolutely no comprehension of the concept of evidence, no explanation for any of the scientific evidence for evolution and every intention of dragging everyone with him into the abyss of ignorance. A shining example of your brain on creationism. Behold the horror.

FL said:

He is an eyewitness of this TV show, y’all! Give him a break, this must be real!

So, what is your evidence against the content of that televised account? What's your refutation of those MRI photos? NOTHING AT ALL. Remember, a score of 1 to 0 is still a shutout. You've got the zero, amigo.

btw off topic, but since you are floating around here: Happy Orbital Day Keelyn!

terenzioiltroll said:

tomh said: So homeschooling is forbidden in Europe?

It depends on where exactly in Europe. It surely is in Italy, while it is still allowed in England, for instance.

Here in the US, children are considered property of the parents, subject to whatever type of upbringing suits the parents, with only physical abuse proscribed.

Frankly, I find it hard to believe that. I take it as an hyperbole.

Religion has such a stranglehold on the US culture, administered through the legal system, that there is little chance there will be any change in the foreseeable future.

Religion has a certain catch on European society as well, only in a more... well, European way. Very recently, for instance, the High Court of Strasbourgh has pronounced against an italian law about assisted procreation. To please the Catholic sensibility, said law is worded in a way as to be almost inapplicable in the part pertaining the procedures for embryo selection and reimplantation, basically forcing the doctors not to discard any of the conceived embryo. This is also at odds with other parts of italian legislation. Well: Cardinal Bagnasco has denounced this as undue interference of the European Community!

So here's a simple question (or two) regarding the topic.

Can anybody here come up with ANY peer-review journal-published evidence that ID or biblical creationism actually hurts or damages children? With citations?

Remember, the astronauts on the Apollo 8 mission read aloud several verses of the Genesis creation account to the nation and the world. According to peer-review journal-published research studies, how many children were harmed on that occasion? Citations please?

FL

terenzioiltroll said:

tomh said: Here in the US, children are considered property of the parents, subject to whatever type of upbringing suits the parents, with only physical abuse proscribed.

Frankly, I find it hard to believe that. I take it as an hyperbole.

Robin said: btw off topic, but since you are floating around here: Happy Orbital Day Keelyn!

Here you go Floyd:

Alters and NElson (2002) Teaching Evolution in Higher Education. Evolution 56(10):1891-1901.

The article explain how preconceptions can adversely affect the ability of students to learn new scientific concepts. This has a deleterious affect on students as individuals and on society in general. You know, kind of like you Floyd. You refuse to examine evidence because of your preconceptions. You cannot even understand the concept of evidence let alone actually look at it.

Of course this is just the tip of the iceberg. There isa a vast education literature documenting the effect of religious indoctrination on the ability of students to learn science concepts. This is in fact the reason why creationist are so eager to get their views presented in public school classrooms. They know that the damage will be very difficult to undo later on in college.

Now Floyd, according to you, if you can't explain everything all of your explanations can be ignored. So how about explaining to us why there is a nested hierarchy of SINE insertions? If you can't you will be rightly ignored,

FL said: So here's a simple question (or two) regarding the topic. Can anybody here come up with ANY peer-review journal-published evidence that ID or biblical creationism actually hurts or damages children? With citations? Remember, the astronauts on the Apollo 8 mission read aloud several verses of the Genesis creation account to the nation and the world. According to peer-review journal-published research studies, how many children were harmed on that occasion? Citations please? FL

Ray Martinez said: Observed? Go ahead and post YouTubes showing natural selection and evolution in action? Neither are observed, both are inferred. Evolution is not denied; rather, it is rejected because it does not exist. Darwinology is nonsense, the religion of Atheists who MUST accept because no God exists to cause anything to exist.

I don't know if anyone mentioned this previously but Bill Nye has a BS in mechanical engineering from Cornell.

Ray Martinez said: "And I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, in your world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe.... Observed? Go ahead and post YouTubes showing natural selection and evolution in action? Neither are observed, both are inferred. Evolution is not denied; rather, it is rejected because it does not exist. Darwinology is nonsense, the religion of Atheists who MUST accept because no God exists to cause anything to exist.

Ray Martinez said: Any person who says Genesis Creationism harms children is an enraged Atheist venting at the Book that says he or she is going to hell for denying the existence of God.

Ray Martinez said: The reason evolution suffers widespread misunderstanding is because the concept does not exist in nature. Extent of "existence" is the minds of those who understand, the "initiated."

Ray Martinez said:

DS said:

Ray Martinez said: "And I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, in your world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe.... Observed? Go ahead and post YouTubes showing natural selection and evolution in action? Neither are observed, both are inferred. Evolution is not denied; rather, it is rejected because it does not exist. Darwinology is nonsense, the religion of Atheists who MUST accept because no God exists to cause anything to exist.

You see, another perfect example of someone who cannot even understand the basic concept of evidence. This is your brain on creationism. How sad.

Could we expect an Atheist to say otherwise?

Ray Martinez said: "And I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, in your world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe.... Observed? Go ahead and post YouTubes showing natural selection and evolution in action? Neither are observed, both are inferred. Evolution is not denied; rather, it is rejected because it does not exist. Darwinology is nonsense, the religion of Atheists who MUST accept because no God exists to cause anything to exist.

Ray Martinez said:

terenzioiltroll said:

Ray Martinez said: Observed? Go ahead and post YouTubes showing natural selection and evolution in action? Neither are observed, both are inferred. Evolution is not denied; rather, it is rejected because it does not exist. Darwinology is nonsense, the religion of Atheists who MUST accept because no God exists to cause anything to exist.

Uhm... Could you please post a link to a YT clip showing gravity in action? You can't. Gravity is only inferred, all you can "see" is acceleration. Will you deny the theory of gravitation because of this?

All said reply says is that the author (Terenz) agrees with me: evolution is not observed, but inferred.

Ray Martinez said: "And I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, in your world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe.... Observed? Go ahead and post YouTubes showing natural selection and evolution in action? Neither are observed, both are inferred.

Evolution is not denied; rather, it is rejected because it does not exist.

Darwinology is nonsense, the religion of Atheists who MUST accept because no God exists to cause anything to exist.

Ray Martinez said:

harold said:

Ray Martinez said: "And I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, in your world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe.... Observed? Go ahead and post YouTubes showing natural selection and evolution in action? Neither are observed, both are inferred. Evolution is not denied; rather, it is rejected because it does not exist. Darwinology is nonsense, the religion of Atheists who MUST accept because no God exists to cause anything to exist.

Although that is a rather moronic request - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXG8yqWStJ0

Could you, for us, pinpoint where in the video we can OBSERVE evolution in action? What we do observe is two people talking with one another. In addition: are you denying that evolution is inferred?

Ray Martinez said:

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

It is sure nice of these guys to show up here and demonstrate the harm that creationism does to your mental development. Guess Bill was right after all. The damage may be irreversible for the trolls, but why condemn a whole new generation of children to the same fate?

phhht said:

FL said:

He is an eyewitness of this TV show, y’all! Give him a break, this must be real!

So, what is your evidence against the content of that televised account? What's your refutation of those MRI photos? NOTHING AT ALL. Remember, a score of 1 to 0 is still a shutout. You've got the zero, amigo.

This. This. This. And so on, with much more delusional lunacy interspersed and refuted. As Mike Elzinga pointed out then, and the time before that, poor old Flawd is compulsively delusional. He cannot tell fantasy from reality. And he cannot help but advertise that fact, again and again and again and again, ad nauseum.

It is sure nice of these guys to show up here and demonstrate the harm that creationism does to your mental development. Guess Bill was right after all. The damage may be irreversible for the trolls, but why condemn a whole new generation of children to the same fate?

DS said:

SteveP. said: Isn't that the issue? If most engineers (in mememicbottleneck's experience anyway) don't understand it, and most of the general public doesn't understand it, how could it have an adverse impact on peoples's lives in particular or society in general as Nye and some posters here imply and/or assert? If it were true, we could quantify how evolution ignorance negatively affects prison populations, infant mortality, unemployment, and myriad add other gauges of the quality of human activity. But I guess we would first have to go down the rabbit hole of defining quality. From what I understand, Persig did not come out of that rabbit hole unscathed. So maybe this 'evolution denial is bad for mankind' meme would be better left lost in translation. For sanity's sake, of course.

I will grant you that most do not understand it, but neither does the general public.

Ignorance of evolution has a dramatically negative impact on millions of people every day. First, as Nye points out, it makes the world fundamentally inexplicable. This engenders magically thinking that directly affects existence, everything from neglect for tsunami warning systems to lack of attention to near earth objects. Second it affects decision making on many different levels, from public health policies to decisions about antibiotics, to conservation programs to endangered species to genetically engineered foods. All of these areas depend critically on knowledge of basic evolutionary theory. The fact that we are doing so poorly in these areas is partly due to the magically thinking of many citizens and ignorance of the real scientific issues. Many just never bother to become educated in the basic science needed to understand and make informed decisions. This translates directly into pain and suffering for millions, much of it unnecessary. Steve is a just another case in point. He asks how lack of scientific knowledge and magically thinking can possibly have a negative impact since that's the way most people think. Well, if most people think that way, how can it not have a negative impact? Many of the problems in modern society stem from just such ignorance and lack of understanding. Steve cannot understand this. He is blinded to the negative consequences of ignorance and a view of reality based on fairy tales and reality denial. He lives in a a world ruled by magic that absolves him of the necessity to assume responsibility for his own actions. He goes through life blissfully ignorant of every major scientific advancement in the last two hundred years and then wonders why he can't seem to make sense of the world except by invoking the actions of invisible ghosts and goblins. He wishes fervently that the entire society would return to the dark ages where life spans were short and ignorance ruled. He thinks that terms cannot be defined and negative impacts cannot be quantified precisely, so why bother with all of this science stuff? The world has passed him by and he stands by the side of the road desperately clinging to his feeble vision of an inexplicable universe. He can't possibly imagine the tremendous tool that his willful ignorance exacts or the majesty o f the view that he is blinded to. Fortunately, some have learned the value of scientific thinking. Steve takes advantage of their accomplishments every day, all the while ridiculing and belittling their achievements and choosing to remain ignorant of their discoveries. And he wonders why no one is convinced by his mindless blubbering.

SteveP. said: Let them learn the difference between a debit card and a credit card, how to take out a loan, and understand insurance options before asking them to blurt out jeapardy questions like 'What is natural selection?".

Ray Martinez said:

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

There is literally no justification for this type of censorship. My comment could not be anymore on topic.

Matt Young said:

There is literally no justification for this type of censorship. My comment could not be anymore on topic.

I am not censoring the Martinez troll but rather sending its comments to another venue. If you feel compelled to feed it, please feed it on the BW and not here. I will automatically send comments by IBIG, the Byers troll, and the Martinez troll (are there any more? I forget) to the BW as soon as I see them.

SteveP. said: So....in a nutshell....DS is advocating scientism. Separate the issues DS. It is good general education vs. poor general education, not good science education vs. poor science education that affects quality of life. Let them learn the difference between a debit card and a credit card, how to take out a loan, and understand insurance options before asking them to blurt out jeapardy questions like 'What is natural selection?".

So....in a nutshell....Steve is advocating science denialism. Don't try to separate the issues Steve. A good general education includes a strong foundation in the sciences, a poor general education does not. Good science education vs. poor science education affects the quality of life. Let them learn the difference between a myth and a scientific hypothesis, how to distinguish sloppy thinking from logic, and understand how nature works, like 'What is natural selection?". This is something that every educated citizen should understand in order to make informed decisions about agriculture, conservation, endangered species., invasive species, selective breeding, etc. You can remain in ignorance for your entire life Steve, just don't condemn innocent children to the same fate. Everyone cans see the way your preconceptions have affected your thought processes. I believe that you are actually incapable of understanding science and somehow proud of it.

So much creationist trolling -- so little time.

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal: 2012/08/14

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20120814.gif

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

MememicBottleneck said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Yes, that was an odd remark about engineers. Indeed, the fact that engineers tend to operate quite the opposite of evolution, rationally and with intent, means that an all-too-high fraction of engineers are creationists of some sort. Surely all function involves "hammers and nails"... So I can't say that engineers need to know evolution for their jobs. But to keep from confusing what they make with what we find in life, they do need to know that life is different and why it is. Glen Davidson

I would like to know where this data on engineers being creationists comes from. I've been an engineer for over 30 years. I've worked with hundreds of engineers across three different companies, and in all that time and population, I've known exactly 2 that are YECs (I currently share an office with one of them). Of the engineers I currently work with at least half are atheists. Except for the 2 YECs, I've not known any others that would deny evolution. I will grant you that most do not understand it, but neither does the general public.

Are you suggesting that it's not true that "an all-too-high fraction of engineers are creationists"? Or pretending that I wrote something else? We know that there aren't really hard figures out there on creationist engineers per se, but data from a few decades back (is there any reason to think that engineers have changed dramatically since then?) show engineers to be much more likely to be religiously conservative than are scientists. While religious conservatism doesn't have to include creationism, it certainly does have a strong correlation with it. Well, that's scientists, not the general public. Yes, of course it is, since this is implicitly about professionals involved with creationism, not the general public. No one said that engineers are creationists, but we are familiar with engineers who are and who seem likely to be both self-selected and reinforced by education and experience to understand function as a product of design. Glen Davidson

DS said:

IBelieveInGod said: This coming from the guy, who didn't know how to get a valid marriage license, or maybe he did something worse. If you watch the video of Mr Nye as posted here, you should be able to see the great contradiction made my Mr. Nye. He claims that the US is the most technologically advance country, yes we are the most technologically advanced country, even though we don't believe in evolution, even though our children through the generations have been taught creationism by their parents. There you have it actually we are the most technologically advanced country in the world, funny how Bill debunks his own argument in this video:):):)

So that means that all of the countries with state sponsored religions are lagging behind, technologically speaking. Interesting. :):):):):):):):)

Rolf said:

DS said:

IBelieveInGod said: This coming from the guy, who didn't know how to get a valid marriage license, or maybe he did something worse. If you watch the video of Mr Nye as posted here, you should be able to see the great contradiction made my Mr. Nye. He claims that the US is the most technologically advance country, yes we are the most technologically advanced country, even though we don't believe in evolution, even though our children through the generations have been taught creationism by their parents. There you have it actually we are the most technologically advanced country in the world, funny how Bill debunks his own argument in this video:):):)

So that means that all of the countries with state sponsored religions are lagging behind, technologically speaking. Interesting. :):):):):):):):)

We don't have anything like the NASA in our little country of a few million souls but with our state sponsored Lutheran religion we have built a technologically advanced society, developing an oil technology second to none. Heck, 50.000 visitors to our 'oil capital' of Stavanger for oil convention this year. That's where the 'vultures' are these days. Amazing, what we have done and achieved, without losing our mind to creationism!

Ray, that offer for debate on immutable species is still available. I notice that you haven't responded to it.

OK, I'll stop now.

I was not pretending anything else, I don’t believe the statement at its face value. The wiki link only compares engineers (from nearly two decades ago) to scientists. You did not initially make this distinction.

I would like to say that I could put my own country's record of scientific achievement up against anyone's, on a per-capita basis. Well, I'd like to say that. I think it's probably generally true. Certainly in the field of medical research, anyway. But we're by no means free of the effects of the hook-up between right-wing politics and religous fanaticism.

I once watched Senator Steve Fielding make a complete idiot of himself on a talk show with Richard Dawkins. Fielding was at the time in the Australian Senate representing the state of Victoria. He was the only parliamentary representative of the Family First Party, a bunch of right-wing knuckle-dragging wowsers. He got elected because of a quirk in the preferential (instant run-off) voting system we have here. Briefly, if both the major parties allocate preferences to the same unlikely candidate for some one-plank zoo of a party, that zoo can snag the last Senate spot of the six available, on preferences.

Anyway, Fielding wouldn't actually say that he didn't accept evolution, but his efforts to avoid saying it made him sound like a complete moron.

He was a oncer - served his single term and then the electors of Victoria handed him his cards and elected a Green instead. But that chat show was a sobering reminder that you don't have to be scientifically literate, or even rational, to be in the Australian parliament. So we've got nothing to pat ourselves on the back about.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

I was not pretending anything else, I don’t believe the statement at its face value. The wiki link only compares engineers (from nearly two decades ago) to scientists. You did not initially make this distinction.

That's because I don't generally expect jerks like you to come crashing into an issue that's been discussed repeatedly and has a context, while you simply ignore the context. Oh, it happens often enough, but there's still no expectation of it. I don't have to spell out everything every time so that some rude person can't get it wrong, especially since they always can anyway. As you so ably prove. Glen Davidson

And that is why creationism harms children. By teaching them that it’s pointless to learn, to think, to critically examine, to research… creationism turns otherwise intelligent people into idiots that will always be on the losing side of any argument about science.

Yet, creationists insist that lawyers, hydraulic engineers, mathematicians, theologians, and computer programmers know more about biology than than biologists.

It is painfully obvious that ordering children to deny scientific reality for their entire lives is deeply harmful to society.

Creationism is part of a broader post-modern trend - the trend of attempting to deny physical reality by using legislatures and courts to validate the denial. The origin of this "strategy" was probably tobacco company efforts to deny the health impact of smoking, which, I should note, continue to this day.

You cannot change reality by bribing politicians and judges into validating your denial. Smoking cigarettes is a major risk factor for many diseases. Smoking cigarettes will have the same impact on your lungs, blood vessels, heart, bladder, larynx, etc, etc, etc, whether you deny this or not. And life will evolve whether you deny evolution or not.

harold said: "Therefore they {creationists} constantly resort to what I call "trying to disprove evolution from above" tactics. The analogous behavior would be doing something like denying that a computer program works by trying to find some theoretical way to deny that computers can exist at all." "It’s just a variant of admitting that no evidence would ever make them change their minds. “I have mathematically proven that some straw man version of evolution can’t happen so therefore I can dismiss all evidence of evolution without looking at it”."

harold, didn't someone look at the Dissent from Darwin list and note that it's mostly non-biologists and large percentage of engineers and mathematicians?

Of course, that isn't really valid either as the wording of the Dissent from Darwin statement was such that many biologists could support it. Another creationist semantic screwup. Hey, FL, did you write that too?

Anyway, there's also a probably large percentage of evangelical Christians of all stripes on that list. That emphasizes an earlier point that Christianity is a belief and cultural meme and really has no impact on science. As you said, gravity will draw you down, even if you are a coyote or a roadrunner.

Also, yes, the vast majority of engineers, computer programmers, mathematicians, etc are either OK with evolution or really don't give a shit. Just like the vast majority of Christians are not psychopathic dominionists with delusions of a new Zion. However, they are vocal and just embarrassing themselves.

ogremk5 said: It doesn't matter if one is a world renowned scientist or engineer, unless one applies learning, thinking, critical examination, and research to everything one attempts to get involved with, then one runs the risk of looking like a fool. Even Nobel prize winners can say stupid things about topics they aren't familiar with.

Yet, creationists insist that lawyers, hydraulic engineers, mathematicians, theologians, and computer programmers know more about biology than than biologists. It's not an appeal to authority to suggest that someone who has studied a field for most of their lives know more about said field than someone in a different field. And it doesn't matter anyway, both statements should be examined.

The here at PT, AtBC, and other forums have studied creationists for decades, some almost half a century. They have consistently found certain things. Things like creationists will lie about what someone said in order to manufacture support for the creationist viewpoint. Creationists tend to be engineers rather than biological scientists. The vast majority of creationists do not understand even high school biology concepts (or chemistry or physics for that matter).

These things are not assumptions. They are not cherry picking of data. They are conclusions drawn over decades of watching creationists. If creationists don't like the conclusions, then the creationists should make an effort to change how they act and build the trust again. Of course, that means abandoning 2000 year-old beliefs and joining the real world.

ogremk5 said: harold, didn't someone look at the Dissent from Darwin list and note that it's mostly non-biologists and large percentage of engineers and mathematicians? Of course, that isn't really valid either as the wording of the Dissent from Darwin statement was such that many biologists could support it. Another creationist semantic screwup. Hey, FL, did you write that too? Anyway, there's also a probably large percentage of evangelical Christians of all stripes on that list. That emphasizes an earlier point that Christianity is a belief and cultural meme and really has no impact on science. As you said, gravity will draw you down, even if you are a coyote or a roadrunner. Also, yes, the vast majority of engineers, computer programmers, mathematicians, etc are either OK with evolution or really don't give a shit. Just like the vast majority of Christians are not psychopathic dominionists with delusions of a new Zion. However, they are vocal and just embarrassing themselves.

Dave Luckett said: I would like to say that I could put my own country's record of scientific achievement up against anyone's, on a per-capita basis. Well, I'd like to say that. I think it's probably generally true. Certainly in the field of medical research, anyway. But we're by no means free of the effects of the hook-up between right-wing politics and religous fanaticism. I once watched Senator Steve Fielding make a complete idiot of himself on a talk show with Richard Dawkins. Fielding was at the time in the Australian Senate representing the state of Victoria. He was the only parliamentary representative of the Family First Party, a bunch of right-wing knuckle-dragging wowsers. He got elected because of a quirk in the preferential (instant run-off) voting system we have here. Briefly, if both the major parties allocate preferences to the same unlikely candidate for some one-plank zoo of a party, that zoo can snag the last Senate spot of the six available, on preferences. Anyway, Fielding wouldn't actually say that he didn't accept evolution, but his efforts to avoid saying it made him sound like a complete moron. He was a oncer - served his single term and then the electors of Victoria handed him his cards and elected a Green instead. But that chat show was a sobering reminder that you don't have to be scientifically literate, or even rational, to be in the Australian parliament. So we've got nothing to pat ourselves on the back about.

The assumption appears to be that because most outspoken creationists are engineers (or some other applied science), then most (or a propensity of) engineers are creationists.

Apparently by asking for the source of this assumption, I was questioning someones belief system, so now I’m a jerk and rude.

I still do not believe any such data exists no matter how many names I’m called.

MememicBottleneck,

I have to agree with Glen here. No one ever said that all engineers, or even the vast majority of engineers, were creationists. What we said, and there is data to back that up (Dissent from Darwin list) is that the majority of vocal creationists are engineers, not biologists.

The set of creationists who are also engineers is not equal to the set of engineers who are also creationists. You are conflating two things that are not equivalent.

Because of that, it doesn't matter how much experience you have with engineers, the people here (in all probability) have much more experience with creationists, which is the group being discussed.

Does that help?

ogremk5 said: I have to agree with Glen here. No one ever said that all engineers, or even the vast majority of engineers, were creationists. What we said, and there is data to back that up (Dissent from Darwin list) is that the majority of vocal creationists are engineers, not biologists.

Yes, that was an odd remark about engineers. Indeed, the fact that engineers tend to operate quite the opposite of evolution, rationally and with intent, means that an all-too-high fraction of engineers are creationists of some sort. Surely all function involves “hammers and nails”…

The set of creationists who are also engineers is not equal to the set of engineers who are also creationists. You are conflating two things that are not equivalent.

Because of that, it doesn't matter how much experience you have with engineers, the people here (in all probability) have much more experience with creationists, which is the group being discussed.

ogremk5 said: MememicBottleneck, I have to agree with Glen here. No one ever said that all engineers, or even the vast majority of engineers, were creationists. What we said, and there is data to back that up (Dissent from Darwin list) is that the majority of vocal creationists are engineers, not biologists. The set of creationists who are also engineers is not equal to the set of engineers who are also creationists. You are conflating two things that are not equivalent. Because of that, it doesn't matter how much experience you have with engineers, the people here (in all probability) have much more experience with creationists, which is the group being discussed. Does that help?

I am delighted Bill Nye spoke out, and should note that he elaborated on his video commentary recently at the Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/28/bill-nye-creationism_n_1837505.html

Should teaching creationism be against the law?

Teaching creationism in science class as an alternative to evolution is inappropriate.

Is religion inconsistent with science?

If your religion is inconsistent with science, consider tempering your beliefs. For me, the claims of creationism are completely unreasonable.

Delusional PT "drive by" creationists like FL, Steve Proulx and Ray Martinez, need to heed Bill Nye's message.

I feel evolution operates very rationally.

In engineering terms, it is a complex stimulus and feedback system.

If you equate natural selection and artificial selection as just selection (I do),

then selection operates with obvious intent.

MememicBottleneck said:

ogremk5 said: I have to agree with Glen here. No one ever said that all engineers, or even the vast majority of engineers, were creationists. What we said, and there is data to back that up (Dissent from Darwin list) is that the majority of vocal creationists are engineers, not biologists.

I never stated nor implied that either of you said that. I originally took exception to Glen's statement:

Yes, that was an odd remark about engineers. Indeed, the fact that engineers tend to operate quite the opposite of evolution, rationally and with intent, means that an all-too-high fraction of engineers are creationists of some sort. Surely all function involves “hammers and nails”…

First of all as an engineer, I feel evolution operates very rationally. In engineering terms, it is a complex stimulus and feedback system. If you equate natural selection and artificial selection as just selection (I do), then selection operates with obvious intent. Ask any animal breeder. I have no idea what he was getting at with the hammers and nails stuff. To state that "an all-too-high fraction of engineers are creationists" without any reference is easy to misunderstand that he meant "compared to scientists". Then get bent out of shape because I don't know the code words. As I stated earlier, it is a well known fact that the higher the education the less likely you are going to believe in some mythology, so why is it surprising that a higher percentage of engineers than scientists are creationists? What would one define as an acceptable fraction? Most engineers know jack about biology. Neither do policemen, firemen, teachers, mechanics or most people outside of that field. Science and biology in particular are sorely lacking in our elementary and high school education system. I hope we can all at least agree on that.

The set of creationists who are also engineers is not equal to the set of engineers who are also creationists. You are conflating two things that are not equivalent.

Well, you proabably didn't mean it that way, but the way you wrote the above, they are exactly equivalent. Draw two overlapping circles. One represents creationists, the other engineers. The overlap is the creationists who are engineers, and the engineers who are creationists.

Because of that, it doesn't matter how much experience you have with engineers, the people here (in all probability) have much more experience with creationists, which is the group being discussed.

I have a lot of experience with a small set of creationists and a large amount of experience with a lot of engineers. The creationists I typically run into are not like the trolls that show up here. If you expose them to reality, they run away. They need to maintain plausible deniability to evolution. Education actually frightens them. I knew very little about evolution (never doubted it) until I got put into an office with a creationist. I knew the crap he was telling me was a lie, but I didn't know how to deal with it. I have talkorigins and the quote mine project to thank for arming me. He'd state some out of context lie, and I'd respond with "thou shall not bear false witness". Then show him the actual quote in context. It's been about a year and a half since he's brought up evolution with me. The creationists here are incapable of learning anything, the ones I run into run away from hearing anything that deviates from their beliefs. What they have in common is that you cannot teach them anything about biology.

That's the problem when you start thinking of evolution as engineering. IT'S NOT. STOP IT.

Engineering a product or system is different. Design is used in engineering to meet the requirements of the product. You have to match a budget, a timeline, and numerous other design constraints that may be artificial or physical (you can't make aluminum not melt at 50,00K).

Evolution doesn't do any of that. The only constraint is survivability of offspring. Just take a look at what evolutionary algorithms create.

That, to me, is the fundamental problem as to why engineers become creationists. They see complicated things and think someone had to design it.

As far as the engineers and creationists thing. I obviously didn't explain it very well since you didn't get it.

There is a big difference between 0.01% of all engineers are creationists vs. 50% of all creationists are engineers. Yes, the subset creationist engineers are the same, but the encompassing populations are different.

I just finished about a 1000 word blog post and I'm not thinking or writing effectively. You figure it out.

I understand your predicament since there are many here who think that being either Conservative or Republican automatically means that one is a creationist.

ogremk5 said: That's the problem when you start thinking of evolution as engineering. IT'S NOT. STOP IT. Engineering a product or system is different. Design is used in engineering to meet the requirements of the product. You have to match a budget, a timeline, and numerous other design constraints that may be artificial or physical (you can't make aluminum not melt at 50,00K). Evolution doesn't do any of that. The only constraint is survivability of offspring. Just take a look at what evolutionary algorithms create.

That, to me, is the fundamental problem as to why engineers become creationists. They see complicated things and think someone had to design it.

As far as the engineers and creationists thing. I obviously didn't explain it very well since you didn't get it. There is a big difference between 0.01% of all engineers are creationists vs. 50% of all creationists are engineers. Yes, the subset creationist engineers are the same, but the encompassing populations are different.

harold said: John said -

I understand your predicament since there are many here who think that being either Conservative or Republican automatically means that one is a creationist.

Conservative, no, Republican yes. A vote for Romney is a vote for Freshwater.

harold said:

MememicBottleneck said: I feel evolution operates very rationally.

I'm not sure what you mean here. As an analogy this works. However, evolution (other than the evolution of domestic plants and animals) can be explained without the need for any conscious rational actor.

harold said: John said -

I understand your predicament since there are many here who think that being either Conservative or Republican automatically means that one is a creationist.

Conservative, no, Republican yes. A vote for Romney is a vote for Freshwater.

I would agree with Mememic’s statement. “Evolution operates very rationally” in the opposite sense from, “Creationism operates very irrationally”.

“Rational” as in “reasonable”, or “sensible”, or “In accordance with the principles of logic”.

Sure, the results may be totally random (well, okay, at least contingently random),

but the process of Evolution is entirely reasonable and logical.

And, given that the process is random, then the results of Evolution (ie, the Ecology we see today) are “rational”. That is, the fact that we see a mix of strongly dependent but otherwise (contingently) random elements working together in an Ecology makes sense if the process that got us here was random.

In contrast, the process of Creationism is by miraculous fiat. Not only is the process irrational (as in neither logical nor sensible), but if one assumes that the results were “designed”, then the results are also irrational. That is, since the Ecology we see today is a mix of strongly dependent but otherwise random element working together, it is irrational for a rational design to create such a random result.

John said:

harold said: John said -

I understand your predicament since there are many here who think that being either Conservative or Republican automatically means that one is a creationist.

Conservative, no, Republican yes. A vote for Romney is a vote for Freshwater.

Just to enlighten you, harold, Romney opposed the teaching of Intelligent Design in Massachusetts public school science classrooms when he was the governor of that state. Moroever, he is apparently a theistic evolutionist, acknowledging that GOD "used" evolution to produce humanity: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/11/romney-elaborates-on-evolution/ Speaking of "your own form of denial", harold, I have been a registered Republican since my senior year in high school. Does that make me automatically a creationist? You and others here at Panda's Thumb know better. While I strongly object to their objections to global warming, let me just remind you that noted Conservatives and Republicans like Washington Post columnists Charles Krauthammer and George Will (both of whom wrote in praise of Judge Jones' ruling in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial soon after the decision was announced in December, 2005), nationally syndicated radio talk show host John Batchelor (he frequently discusses evolution with people like science journalists John Noble Wilford and Carl Zimmer and biologist Sean B. Carroll) and Newt Gingrich recognize the overwhelming scientific evidence for biological evolution and that current evolutionary theory is the best scientific explanation for it.

harold said: This is my final comment on this topic.

(MEMO TO PANDA’S THUMB CREW: I think I’ve earned the right to express my political dissent without forcing me to sign in repeatedly from both my Yahoo and Facebook accounts. I would appreciate it if you respect that right.)

Romney opposed the teaching of Intelligent Design in Massachusetts public school science classrooms when he was the governor of that state. Moroever, he is apparently a theistic evolutionist, acknowledging that GOD “used” evolution to produce humanity

One comment only for J. K.

Granted, not all Republicans are creationists, climate change denialists, or racists. But most creationists, climate change denialists, and racists--if they choose to associate with either major party--are Republicans.

Why do you think it is that people like that choose the Republican party? We know your counter-examples, and please note my "granted" above. Then, if you please, address the real question.

There is little doubt what direction Romney would take the Supreme Court. When he named Robert Bork as head of his judicial advisory committee, he declared, "I wish he were on the Supreme Court." Bork, who would reverse the Civil Rights Act of 1964, dismissing the law as state coercion and “a principle of unsurpassed ugliness;” he would reverse Roe v Wade, reverse Edwards, and basically reverse every piece of social progress, particularly for women and minorities, that has been made in the last 50 years. This is Romney's chief advisor on judicial appointments.

Although Romney had previously praised Chief Justice Roberts, after the healthcare ruling Romney declared Roberts, who is arguably one of the most conservative justices in Supreme Court history, "not conservative enough," a clear signal about the direction Romney appointments would take the court. With the addition of Romney appointments, the most conservative Supreme Court in decades will become even more extremist.

harold said: Scott F - I find your comment, and those by Mememic Bottleneck, to be highly intelligent, but I'm going to somewhat disagree, in a respectful way. In the biomedical sciences, anthropomorphism of non-conscious processes is the most common error of the highly intelligent student.

I would agree with Mememic’s statement. “Evolution operates very rationally” in the opposite sense from, “Creationism operates very irrationally”.

But evolution is a natural process that has been going on for billions of years on earth (and long predates any kind of nervous system, let alone human brains), whereas creationism is an irrational human idea. (I agree with the "creationism operates very irrationally" part of your statement.)

“Rational” as in “reasonable”, or “sensible”, or “In accordance with the principles of logic”.

Arguably, my disagreement is purely semantic, but I think it's a worthwhile semantic point. Rational thinking evolved in the context of the physical universe. Still, it's a type of thinking which is "rational", not the universe itself. Plant behavior is highly adaptive, but we don't call plants "rational".

Sure, the results may be totally random (well, okay, at least contingently random),

The process of mutation is indeed both contingent on history, and random - best modeled as a random variable. Random sampling occurs when we can predict the expected frequency of certain types of events, but can't predict exactly which event will happen next. For example, the sum result of a roll of two dice is a random variable. Mutations are exactly analogous. We know some will occur more often than others, and we know the approximate frequencies with which they will occur, but we don't know exactly which will occur when (and that's true even when we're doing experiments designed to create organisms with specific mutations). Genetic drift is the change in frequency of an allele for reasons other than natural selection, and is best modeled as essentially random (I realize that this statement is terse, and expanded treatment of genetic drift by other commenters is welcome, but the statement itself is correct). Most people don't consider natural selection to be best viewed as "random". Due to natural selection, evolution has, as Mememic Bottleneck insightfully pointed out, a strong feedback character. The environment itself is constantly being recreated by the interaction between evolving life and the non-living parts of the environment. (Note on the word "frequency" - I realize that Mark Perach and some other mathematicians who are associated with disputing creationism don't accept the "frequency definition of probability" in all cases, but in the case of mutations, talking about frequency makes perfect sense.)

but the process of Evolution is entirely reasonable and logical.

It is reasonable and logical for humans to understand the process of evolution. Reasonable and logical are terms that describe a type of human mental process. We sometimes describe some human individuals, laughably, as "reasonable" or "logical". In fact, essentially all humans are motivated by our constant experience of emotional and instinctive drives, and we rely on heuristics for most of our decisions. A "reasonable" person is one who indulges in comparatively less blatantly irrational behavior. For me, the "process of evolution" is no more "reasonable and logical" than "the force of gravity" or "the process of lightening strikes". It's something that happens in nature. Mutations are best described at the molecular level; they are thus in essence a chemical process. Random genetic drift is by definition stochastic in nature. Natural selection isn't usually modeled as random, but except for specific examples of breeding, it never needs to be modeled as planned by a conscious entity. As I mentioned above, even highly intelligent, obviously conscious canine predators like wolves and foxes don't plan the effects they have on natural selection of prey, and would "prefer" the opposite effects.

And, given that the process is random, then the results of Evolution (ie, the Ecology we see today) are “rational”. That is, the fact that we see a mix of strongly dependent but otherwise (contingently) random elements working together in an Ecology makes sense if the process that got us here was random.

It is rational for humans to recognize this. There is nothing "rational" going on when a fungal parasite of plants experiences selection due to plant defenses against fungi, resulting in subsequent additional selection of plants, resulting in more selection of the fungi... There is no requirement for a conscious plan.

In contrast, the process of Creationism is by miraculous fiat. Not only is the process irrational (as in neither logical nor sensible), but if one assumes that the results were “designed”, then the results are also irrational. That is, since the Ecology we see today is a mix of strongly dependent but otherwise random element working together, it is irrational for a rational design to create such a random result.

Creationism is an irrational human idea. For thousands of years, traditional creationism was just a solid heuristic/emotionally satisfying untestable cultural tradition. Belief in traditional creationism would be rational if the observed evidence fit some version of traditional creationism. It doesn't, so rational people moved on. Contemporary ID/creationism can't be supported by evidence, because it is a self-contradictory ad hoc ideological construction.

Ben said:

Romney opposed the teaching of Intelligent Design in Massachusetts public school science classrooms when he was the governor of that state. Moroever, he is apparently a theistic evolutionist, acknowledging that GOD “used” evolution to produce humanity

The implication that Romney's positions as governor of Massachusetts have anything whatsoever to do with who he has (supposedly) transformed himself into to run for president in the era of fundamentalist/Tea Party control of the Republican party is just stupid, and you know it. If you have some evidence that Romney wouldn't pander just as much to the wingnut godbot right in this area as he has in all others, let's see it.

tomh said: There is little doubt what direction Romney would take the Supreme Court. When he named Robert Bork as head of his judicial advisory committee, he declared, "I wish he were on the Supreme Court." Bork, who would reverse the Civil Rights Act of 1964, dismissing the law as state coercion and “a principle of unsurpassed ugliness;” he would reverse Roe v Wade, reverse Edwards, and basically reverse every piece of social progress, particularly for women and minorities, that has been made in the last 50 years. This is Romney's chief advisor on judicial appointments. Although Romney had previously praised Chief Justice Roberts, after the healthcare ruling Romney declared Roberts, who is arguably one of the most conservative justices in Supreme Court history, "not conservative enough," a clear signal about the direction Romney appointments would take the court. With the addition of Romney appointments, the most conservative Supreme Court in decades will become even more extremist.

Matt Young said:

(MEMO TO PANDA’S THUMB CREW: I think I’ve earned the right to express my political dissent without forcing me to sign in repeatedly from both my Yahoo and Facebook accounts. I would appreciate it if you respect that right.)

I have no idea why, but I had to manually approve this comment, and I have forwarded your "MEMO" to the Webmaster.

Paul Burnett said:

Matt Young said:

(MEMO TO PANDA’S THUMB CREW: I think I’ve earned the right to express my political dissent without forcing me to sign in repeatedly from both my Yahoo and Facebook accounts. I would appreciate it if you respect that right.)

I have no idea why, but I had to manually approve this comment, and I have forwarded your "MEMO" to the Webmaster.

While you have somebody looking at the commenting software, could you PLEASE fix the bug that makes us sign in every $#@! day? When it says "Remember me?" - it doesn't.

John said:

tomh said: There is little doubt what direction Romney would take the Supreme Court. When he named Robert Bork as head of his judicial advisory committee, he declared, "I wish he were on the Supreme Court." Bork, who would reverse the Civil Rights Act of 1964, dismissing the law as state coercion and “a principle of unsurpassed ugliness;” he would reverse Roe v Wade, reverse Edwards, and basically reverse every piece of social progress, particularly for women and minorities, that has been made in the last 50 years. This is Romney's chief advisor on judicial appointments. Although Romney had previously praised Chief Justice Roberts, after the healthcare ruling Romney declared Roberts, who is arguably one of the most conservative justices in Supreme Court history, "not conservative enough," a clear signal about the direction Romney appointments would take the court. With the addition of Romney appointments, the most conservative Supreme Court in decades will become even more extremist.

I wouldn't be sure of that, especially since he looked for the most qualified people in his gubernatorial staff, which included an Afro-American - who identified herself as a liberal Democrat - woman who addressed the Republican National Convention Thursday night. As for the presence of woman in his staff, he has been praised for having put substantially more women in senior administrative positions in state government than any current or previous governor when he was Massachussetts governor.

John said:

Ben said:

Romney opposed the teaching of Intelligent Design in Massachusetts public school science classrooms when he was the governor of that state. Moroever, he is apparently a theistic evolutionist, acknowledging that GOD “used” evolution to produce humanity

The implication that Romney's positions as governor of Massachusetts have anything whatsoever to do with who he has (supposedly) transformed himself into to run for president in the era of fundamentalist/Tea Party control of the Republican party is just stupid, and you know it. If you have some evidence that Romney wouldn't pander just as much to the wingnut godbot right in this area as he has in all others, let's see it.

You ignore the fact that Romney is on record as stating his acceptance of the overwhelming scientific fact of biological evolution and recognizing that "Darwin's theory of evolution" - I will assume he meant current evolutionary theory - is the best scientific explanation of it as he noted in that New York Times article back in 2007, whose link I had posted yesterday in reply to one of harold's comments.

apokryltaros said:

John said:

Ben said:

Romney opposed the teaching of Intelligent Design in Massachusetts public school science classrooms when he was the governor of that state. Moroever, he is apparently a theistic evolutionist, acknowledging that GOD “used” evolution to produce humanity

The implication that Romney's positions as governor of Massachusetts have anything whatsoever to do with who he has (supposedly) transformed himself into to run for president in the era of fundamentalist/Tea Party control of the Republican party is just stupid, and you know it. If you have some evidence that Romney wouldn't pander just as much to the wingnut godbot right in this area as he has in all others, let's see it.

You ignore the fact that Romney is on record as stating his acceptance of the overwhelming scientific fact of biological evolution and recognizing that "Darwin's theory of evolution" - I will assume he meant current evolutionary theory - is the best scientific explanation of it as he noted in that New York Times article back in 2007, whose link I had posted yesterday in reply to one of harold's comments.

The problem is that Romney, and other Republicans of high standing/power are notorious for saying whatever their financial backers and political base want them to say, even if it means making contradictory statements that cast reasonable doubt on their honesty. So, if Romney is convinced that he will need the votes of creationists and other Science-Haters For Jesus, then don't be surprised at all if he makes statements that affirm Creationism or deny science in the following months.

apokryltaros said: ... don't be surprised at all if he makes statements that affirm Creationism or deny science in the following months.

John said: ...concluded that Romney had made the most progress up to that point by having 50% of these positions in his administration go to women.

I don't want to make any more comments on this topic, but I can't help noticing that occasional PT contributor Ed Brayton has a blog post about it.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/09/02/pfaw-ad-hits-romney-on-judicial-selection/

Dave Luckett said: I would like to say that I could put my own country's record of scientific achievement up against anyone's, on a per-capita basis. Well, I'd like to say that. I think it's probably generally true. Certainly in the field of medical research, anyway. But we're by no means free of the effects of the hook-up between right-wing politics and religous fanaticism. I once watched Senator Steve Fielding make a complete idiot of himself on a talk show with Richard Dawkins. Fielding was at the time in the Australian Senate representing the state of Victoria. He was the only parliamentary representative of the Family First Party, a bunch of right-wing knuckle-dragging wowsers. He got elected because of a quirk in the preferential (instant run-off) voting system we have here. Briefly, if both the major parties allocate preferences to the same unlikely candidate for some one-plank zoo of a party, that zoo can snag the last Senate spot of the six available, on preferences. Anyway, Fielding wouldn't actually say that he didn't accept evolution, but his efforts to avoid saying it made him sound like a complete moron. He was a oncer - served his single term and then the electors of Victoria handed him his cards and elected a Green instead. But that chat show was a sobering reminder that you don't have to be scientifically literate, or even rational, to be in the Australian parliament. So we've got nothing to pat ourselves on the back about.

John said:

tomh said: There is little doubt what direction Romney would take the Supreme Court. When he named Robert Bork as head of his judicial advisory committee, he declared, "I wish he were on the Supreme Court." Bork, who would reverse the Civil Rights Act of 1964, dismissing the law as state coercion and “a principle of unsurpassed ugliness;” he would reverse Roe v Wade, reverse Edwards, and basically reverse every piece of social progress, particularly for women and minorities, that has been made in the last 50 years. This is Romney's chief advisor on judicial appointments. Although Romney had previously praised Chief Justice Roberts, after the healthcare ruling Romney declared Roberts, who is arguably one of the most conservative justices in Supreme Court history, "not conservative enough," a clear signal about the direction Romney appointments would take the court. With the addition of Romney appointments, the most conservative Supreme Court in decades will become even more extremist.

I wouldn't be sure of that, especially since he looked for the most qualified people in his gubernatorial staff, which included an Afro-American - who identified herself as a liberal Democrat - woman who addressed the Republican National Convention Thursday night. As for the presence of woman in his staff, he has been praised for having put substantially more women in senior administrative positions in state government than any current or previous governor when he was Massachussetts governor.

MichaelJ said: I don't think anybody can honestly way what Romney will do when he is elected. He has been on all sides of every issue. My guess is that fear about upsetting the centre and the hard right will cause him to do very little in his first term.

Scott F said:

MichaelJ said: I don't think anybody can honestly way what Romney will do when he is elected. He has been on all sides of every issue. My guess is that fear about upsetting the centre and the hard right will cause him to do very little in his first term.

Given what recently elected Republican governors and state legislatures have done, it is very unlikely that he would "do very little in his first term". Think Michigan. Think Wisconsin.

John said:

harold said: John said -

I understand your predicament since there are many here who think that being either Conservative or Republican automatically means that one is a creationist.

Conservative, no, Republican yes. A vote for Romney is a vote for Freshwater.

Just to enlighten you, harold, Romney opposed the teaching of Intelligent Design in Massachusetts public school science classrooms when he was the governor of that state

apokryltaros said:

Scott F said:

MichaelJ said: I don't think anybody can honestly way what Romney will do when he is elected. He has been on all sides of every issue. My guess is that fear about upsetting the centre and the hard right will cause him to do very little in his first term.

Given what recently elected Republican governors and state legislatures have done, it is very unlikely that he would "do very little in his first term". Think Michigan. Think Wisconsin.

Furthermore, given the behavior of recently elected Republican governors and state legislatures, it is highly unlikely that Romney will even acknowledge the very existence of the center, let alone fear about upsetting the center.

MichaelJ said:

apokryltaros said:

Scott F said:

MichaelJ said: I don't think anybody can honestly way what Romney will do when he is elected. He has been on all sides of every issue. My guess is that fear about upsetting the centre and the hard right will cause him to do very little in his first term.

Given what recently elected Republican governors and state legislatures have done, it is very unlikely that he would "do very little in his first term". Think Michigan. Think Wisconsin.

Furthermore, given the behavior of recently elected Republican governors and state legislatures, it is highly unlikely that Romney will even acknowledge the very existence of the center, let alone fear about upsetting the center.

I disagree for 2 reasons: 1. Most of those Governors are Ideologues and Mitt isn't. These guys will sacrifice the next election to push their agenda. Mitt will do or say anything to get elected and he will always have an eye on the 2016 election. 2. The extreme-right are useful in getting out to vote but the fact is that they are a minority. For example The majority of Americans support gay-marriage and abortion. They just can't be bothered voting or like John they will pretend that Mitt will magically turn into the Romney from a decade ago. If Mitt actually starts doing any of the more extreme stuff he will get smashed in 2016.

MichaelJ said:

apokryltaros said:

Scott F said:

MichaelJ said: I don't think anybody can honestly way what Romney will do when he is elected. He has been on all sides of every issue. My guess is that fear about upsetting the centre and the hard right will cause him to do very little in his first term.

Given what recently elected Republican governors and state legislatures have done, it is very unlikely that he would "do very little in his first term". Think Michigan. Think Wisconsin.

Furthermore, given the behavior of recently elected Republican governors and state legislatures, it is highly unlikely that Romney will even acknowledge the very existence of the center, let alone fear about upsetting the center.

I disagree for 2 reasons: 1. Most of those Governors are Ideologues and Mitt isn't. These guys will sacrifice the next election to push their agenda. Mitt will do or say anything to get elected and he will always have an eye on the 2016 election. 2. The extreme-right are useful in getting out to vote but the fact is that they are a minority. For example The majority of Americans support gay-marriage and abortion. They just can't be bothered voting or like John they will pretend that Mitt will magically turn into the Romney from a decade ago. If Mitt actually starts doing any of the more extreme stuff he will get smashed in 2016.

MichaelJ said:

apokryltaros said:

Scott F said:

MichaelJ said: I don't think anybody can honestly way what Romney will do when he is elected. He has been on all sides of every issue. My guess is that fear about upsetting the centre and the hard right will cause him to do very little in his first term.

Given what recently elected Republican governors and state legislatures have done, it is very unlikely that he would "do very little in his first term". Think Michigan. Think Wisconsin.

Furthermore, given the behavior of recently elected Republican governors and state legislatures, it is highly unlikely that Romney will even acknowledge the very existence of the center, let alone fear about upsetting the center.

I disagree for 2 reasons: 1. Most of those Governors are Ideologues and Mitt isn't. These guys will sacrifice the next election to push their agenda. Mitt will do or say anything to get elected and he will always have an eye on the 2016 election. 2. The extreme-right are useful in getting out to vote but the fact is that they are a minority. For example The majority of Americans support gay-marriage and abortion. They just can't be bothered voting or like John they will pretend that Mitt will magically turn into the Romney from a decade ago. If Mitt actually starts doing any of the more extreme stuff he will get smashed in 2016.

harold said:

MichaelJ said:

apokryltaros said:

Scott F said:

MichaelJ said: I don't think anybody can honestly way what Romney will do when he is elected. He has been on all sides of every issue. My guess is that fear about upsetting the centre and the hard right will cause him to do very little in his first term.

Given what recently elected Republican governors and state legislatures have done, it is very unlikely that he would "do very little in his first term". Think Michigan. Think Wisconsin.

Furthermore, given the behavior of recently elected Republican governors and state legislatures, it is highly unlikely that Romney will even acknowledge the very existence of the center, let alone fear about upsetting the center.

I disagree for 2 reasons: 1. Most of those Governors are Ideologues and Mitt isn't. These guys will sacrifice the next election to push their agenda. Mitt will do or say anything to get elected and he will always have an eye on the 2016 election. 2. The extreme-right are useful in getting out to vote but the fact is that they are a minority. For example The majority of Americans support gay-marriage and abortion. They just can't be bothered voting or like John they will pretend that Mitt will magically turn into the Romney from a decade ago. If Mitt actually starts doing any of the more extreme stuff he will get smashed in 2016.

Also, although it is plausible that a sociopath with a secret preference for extreme right politics might pretend to be a progressive to be elected in Massachusetts, it is far less likely that a humane progressive would fake being a right wing ideologue to win the national Republican primary. It's far more likely that Romney was lying in Massachusetts and speaking his mind now, than vice versa.

MichaelJ said: The extreme-right are useful in getting out to vote but the fact is that they are a minority.

John said: Mitt has demonstrated consistently that, ... he will listen to experts and try his best at governing via bipartisanship, .

I'll try one more time for John:

Granted, not all Republicans are creationists, climate change denialists, or racists. But most creationists, climate change denialists, and racists–if they choose to associate with either major party–are Republicans.

Why do you think it is that people like that choose the Republican party?

We know your counter-examples, and please note my “granted” above. Then, if you please, address the real question.

John -

My strong language isn't directed at you, or at all people who self-identify as Republicans. And it borders on going off topic in this forum.

harold said: John - My strong language isn't directed at you, or at all people who self-identify as Republicans. And it borders on going off topic in this forum.

Cool. If "certain people" don't mind being in a group that disproportionately includes creationists, climate change denialists, and racists, then that's their prerogative. Oh, and gun fetishists.

Just Bob said: Cool. If "certain people" don't mind being in a group that disproportionately includes creationists, climate change denialists, and racists, then that's their prerogative. Oh, and gun fetishists.

Good luck. Seriously.

In other news, I seek to convince water that it should boil at 130 C

https://me.yahoo.com/a/KirCgV93wJhLm65myiH0mSwTlWCQuwnMxlI4xKqx#26847 said: In other news, I seek to convince water that it should boil at 130 C

Or just increase the air pressure; that can raise the boiling point up to some upper limit value.

In the light of the debunking of "Junk DNA", it is imperative that children are not taught other myths like "vestigial traits" or "transitional forms".