A good review of the Kansas hearings

| 88 Comments

I have not had time yet to reflect in writing on the Kansas hearings, but here is one of the best stories I’ve seen on what actually went on in the hearings. About the author, it says

Stan Cox lives in Salina, Kan. He has a Ph.D. in plant breeding and cytogenetics and has been a plant breeder for 22 years.

I encourage anyone interested in the Kansas hearings to read this article. If you think it is appropriate, you might send him an email at [Enable javascript to see this email address.] or offer a comment at the alternet site.

88 Comments

An excellent article, and one that shows how the Kansas creationists are religiously motivated. Of course anyone who follows the PT discussions recognizes that - scratch an anti-evolutionist, find a fundamentalist.

Will a transcript of the hearings be posted somewhere? Hopefully, it will be searchable, so we don’t have to wade through the entire thing, which would be virtual chloroform.

Well done, Stan, and KCFS!

Ohio biology teacher Bryan Leonard testified that he helped write a state lesson plan called “Critical Analysis of Evolution.” He said he knows it’s a “good product” because of the overwhelmingly positive reaction from students: “The key is to find out what students want and teach toward their interests.”

Six hours of recess every day!

A plant breeder?? Doesn’t he know that only God can breed plants????????/?? He probably uses dead babies for fertilizer. String him up!

[Clavert’s] legal argument, which had been implicit in all of his questioning of witnesses, goes like this: 

(1) Evolution as it’s now taught in Kansas schools is based on methodological naturalism, that is, the search by science for explanations only in the natural world.

(2) Methodological naturalism always implies philosophical naturalism, the belief that there is nothing beyond the natural world. (This, say anti-ID scientists, is the fatal flaw in the argument.)

(3) Philosophical naturalism is atheistic.

As per our discussion on the other thread, Calvert is taking the position that all of science, including meteorology, medicine, astronomy, etc., is one big exercise in atheism.

Quote:

Ohio biology teacher Bryan Leonard testified that he helped write a state lesson plan called “Critical Analysis of Evolution.” He said he knows it’s a “good product” because of the overwhelmingly positive reaction from students: “The key is to find out what students want and teach toward their interests.”

In other news, children have expressed an interest in smoking cigarettes.

“The key is to find out what students want and teach toward their interests.”

So much for abstinence-only sex-ed.…

Thanks for the excellent link, Mr. Krebs!

Stan Cox is a fine writer. I was also impressed by many of the comments in response to his article, particularly this one posted by “tofocsend”

“Evolution … is based on methodological naturalism, that is, the search by science for explanations only in the natural world. Methodological naturalism always implies philosophical naturalism, the belief that there is nothing beyond the natural world.”

This is a ridiculous tautology. Of course science is the search for explanations only in the natural world - the natural world is the only medium humans can observe and manipulate in a documented, repeatable manner - i.e. scientifically.

Science does not presume that “there is nothing beyond the natural world” (although some scientists doubtless believe this), only that science is not competent to explore whatever lies “beyond the natural world”.

The simple fact is that there is no contradiction between evolution and creation. Evolution is a scientific theory to explain the diversity in life across space and time, and “intelligent design” (ID) is a philosophical theory to explain how life came to exist in the first place.

As soon as you introduce ID into a science discussion, you’re no longer talking about science, since ID implies influence on natural processes that originates from “beyond the natural world” - i.e. outside the purview of science.

If schools want to discuss ultimate questions about how life originated, let them do it in a philosophy class. Transforming science from experiment and observation into mysterious forces that cannot be discussed in class destroys science and does an injustice to whatever mysterious forces may be at work in the universe.

Hmm. Nearing ten comments, and no ID/creationist trolls have shown up. Wonder how long this blessed state will last…

That said, while ID took a beating in the eyes of anyone who actually knew scientific theory from a hole in the ground, I’ve no doubt the flag-waving zealots on the sidelines are already preparing to trumpet their great “victory”–when the board comes to conclusion we are a ll reasonably sure they’re going to…

any bets on who will be the first IDer to post on this thread?

I’m gonna go with Slaveador Condorva

My, my, Sir T! You definitely need more fibre in your diet.

The IDers are probably out having another crisis of faith. I recall as a budding scientist going through that. I started out a confirmed Bud drinker, then a fraternity brother converted me to Coors. Fortunately, there was an intervention, I spent some time in a half-way house and emerged a Michelob devotee. Less filling? Tastes great? I say teach the controversy and let the kids decide.

“My, my, Sir T! You definitely need more fibre in your diet.”

just the opposite, actually. I’m tired of eating the high fiber diet being fed to us by the IDers.

I wish they would get some meat to their arguments.

btw, i did write to Stan to thank him for taking the time to respond to the Kansas Kangaroo.

As to the comments to Stan’s article quoted above. these two lines cannot be repeated often enough, imo:

“This is a ridiculous tautology. Of course science is the search for explanations only in the natural world - the natural world is the only medium humans can observe and manipulate in a documented, repeatable manner - i.e. scientifically.

Science does not presume that “there is nothing beyond the natural world” (although some scientists doubtless believe this), only that science is not competent to explore whatever lies “beyond the natural world”.”

At any given moment in time, this is absolutely true.

I would only add that “beyond the natural world” is very strictly tied to the present. Science has had a great track record of addressing things that eventually become part of the natural world as our understanding increases, along with our technical ability to test predictions.

The reason so many of us have chosen the scientific method over religion is simply because of its track record in providing useful results when applied to things that historically were thought to be part of the non-natural world.

You can use disease research as a classic example of this. There was a time when diseases were considered totally outside of the “natural” realm. If we stuck to religious explanations, we would never have solved the riddle posed by disease. However, applying the scientific method, as we grew in understanding that diseases were, in fact, part of the natural world, once we had the technical ability to examine these things and test them… we solved that riddle.

My point is one that has been raised many times before. We don’t abandon the scientific method simply because a particular subject is “untestable” with our current understanding and abilities.

so, my only correction to Stan’s statement would be that we shouldn’t limit science to what is “beyond” the natural world, no more than we should resign god to those gaps as well.

I would think more in terms of god existing “outside” of the natural world, not “beyond”. That is why faith and god are not applicable to the scientific method. not because they are beyond the natural world, but because by definition, they exist outside of it.

Commonly “debate” on the issue of the purview of science includes terms like “beyond the natural world”, but imo, this only results in the standard “god of the gaps” argument which is ultimately limiting for both science and and religion.

semantics, perhaps, but this whole creation/science debate seems to revolve around basic definitions anyway.

sorry, in:

There was a time when diseases were considered totally outside of the “natural” realm.

change outside to beyond

:)

I’m sure this has been brought up numerous times … how can you teach a controversy that doesn’t exist? Is the battle cry really “teach the controversy”? Have “ID’er” ever described the controversy besides rants and arm-waving criticism?

I live in a Red State (Indiana), alas, there are many people here who believe in scripture (Bible) before facts. Perhaps they should change their religion and not try to change science (facts)? Just a thought.

God in the gaps is a popular argument I hear as well.

Back to the article, Stan had an interesting point about the audience in the proceedings.

I say teach the controversy and let the kids decide.

It can’t be said enough - what controversy?!? Has any evidence been presented for a competing theory? No. Does ID make any effort to present any? No.

One of the first conversations I had with a member of the UCSD IDEA club (actually, its President at one point) went like this:

Him: “Well, ID wants people to be aware of the problems with evolution and the way it’s dogmatically taught, in spite of the evidence.”

Me: “How should people be more aware?”

Him: “Well, they should be able to study the controversy over evolution.”

Me: “What controversy?”

Him: “Wait…” (crouches slightly) “you mean you don’t know about the controversy?”

Me: “No.”

(…)

Me: “So, what sorts of things do you guys discuss at the IDEA club?”

Him: “Oh, know you, stuff about design, signs of intelligence, information theory, complex systems.”

Me: “What information theory?”

Him: “Wait…” (crouches) “you mean you want to debate evolution and you don’t know about information theory?”

I find it amusing with these people. They think that the only way to defend evolution (if it could be done!) would be with the strawmen that they have constructed in order to argue against it. It’s also pretty funny how much these people remind me of LaRouchies in the way their eyes glaze over when tehy start talking about the conspiracies behind it all, how great Bill Dembski is, or how they start roughing you up and insinuating that you’re confused and ignorant if you disagree with them. It can be just like any other cult of personality.

Sir T

You said “I’m tired of eating the high fiber diet being fed to us by the IDers.”

Shouldn’t that be “high fibber diet?”

That aside, the article and posts at AlterNet have been quite good.

One of the first conversations I had with a member of the UCSD IDEA club (actually, its President at one point) went like this:

Him: “Well, ID wants people to be aware of the problems with evolution and the way it’s dogmatically taught, in spite of the evidence.”

Me: “How should people be more aware?”

Him: “Well, they should be able to study the controversy over evolution.”

Me: “What controversy?”

Him: “Wait…” (crouches slightly) “you mean you don’t know about the controversy?”

Me: “No.”

(…)

Me: “So, what sorts of things do you guys discuss at the IDEA club?”

Him: “Oh, know you, stuff about design, signs of intelligence, information theory, complex systems.”

Me: “What information theory?”

Him: “Wait…” (crouches) “you mean you want to debate evolution and you don’t know about information theory?”

I find it amusing with these people. They think that the only way to defend evolution (if it could be done!) would be with the strawmen that they have constructed in order to argue against it. It’s also pretty funny how much these people remind me of LaRouchies in the way their eyes glaze over when they start talking about the conspiracies behind it all, how great Bill Dembski is, or how they start roughing you up and insinuating that you’re confused and ignorant if you disagree with them. It can be just like any other cult of personality.

I say teach the controversy and let the kids decide.

But you were talking about the controversy over Coors vs. Budweiser. And you did the research on both sides so you had the facts first.

Teach the facts. If there is controversy, the kids will be competent to judge, once they have the facts. Leave no child behind: Teach evolution.

Sorry, redundant posts.

I’m sorry if my writing was slurred, but, yes, I was referring to beer. Actually, I solved that controversy in England where the beer was both less filling and tasted great. Why choose one over the other? And, yes, too, I did lots and lots and lots and lots of research. Can’t have enough data. I always say that.

Hmmm, it appears we’ve created an IDiot Free Zone? How refreshing!

Dave that post was good enough to read twice!

That Casey Luskin character at the UCSD IDEA Club makes my skin crawl. A genuinely disturbing individual.

Since ID can’t argue the facts their argument is purely theological, not scientific. But to them it is science. It’s science because their theology tells them that science is wrong. The quandary for them is that they can’t do real science. They have no evidence to present. They just know they’re right. If they could only get science to look in the right direction they’d be vindicated. Once they have the science community working for them and supporting their agenda we’ll find the designer.

So how would you change the very meaning and objectives of science? You can’t directly challenge scientists. Tried it, didn’t work. What you’d have to have is a grass roots culture change. With everyone on your side you could take control of politics, religion and the media. Then you’d have power enough to take on science. They’re not winning yet but they seem to be doing a great job so far. Teaching ID in schools to the next generation of scientists would fit nicely into this plan.

Their ultimate aim is hijacking science. I’d like to laugh but these guys are a real threat.

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 15, column 222, byte 1466 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

Steve U, close but no cigar. I wasn’t referring to Casey. And thanks for the props.

I also would like to complain about the absence of nasty pro-ID responses. As I hit the ‘Send’ button to submit the article to Alternet, I was licking my chops in anticipation of what the other crowd would have to say. So far, nothing here or at Alternet.

Anyway, thanks to you folks for fighting the good fight.

Dave and Steve U., I went to UCSD, a long time ago. When I first heard of the UCSD IDEA Club recently, I should have fallen flat on my blacks-beaching eucalyptus-loving cement-box-dwelling space-ship-library-studying hang-gliding hump-lunching quonset-hutting Koala-reading lead-treeing Porter’s-Pubbing purple-fence-running butt.

But I was already sitting down. What a pity, those people infiltrating such a fine institution. Sun-Goddammit.

I even got married there.

bill Wrote:

I’m sorry if my writing was slurred, but, yes, I was referring to beer. Actually, I solved that controversy in England where the beer was both less filling and tasted great. Why choose one over the other? And, yes, too, I did lots and lots and lots and lots of research. Can’t have enough data. I always say that.

With Bud? Coors? Michelob? As a Guinness man, I find your arguements to be weak.

[the following is not an attempt to take the sting out of evolution or science for creationists, jut me wondering out loud]

It is regularly said that scientists are “methodological naturalists”. I am not so sure. Perhaps “methodological conservatives” is better. “Conservative” because scientists tend to look at new phenomena with the same mindset they use for known phemomena - so they will not reach of new types of explanations as soon as they are stumped. They try to keep as much of what they already think, while trying to accomodate the new information. Since they have no need for supernatural explanations so far, when faced with something new they will stick with natural ones. [Which is not to say they do not have other excellent reasons for doing so].

“With Bud? Coors? Michelob? As a Guinness man, I find your arguements to be weak.”

I bet all you athesistic, materialist, baby-eaters drink your beer cold, and teach your children to do so as well.

Haven’t yet found a textbook where it was NOT taught or NOT accepted as science. Have you?

I found one

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t[…]606?v=glance

Which must really surprise the &*%# out of Sancho P. Cordova, since he considers it fundamental to Origin Of Life science.

And that is what I’m working on this summer, btw, for a certain religion class I hope and intend to take in the fall.

Why on earth are you working on a scientific theory of ID for a *religion* class . …

Or are IDers just lying to us when they claim ID is science and has NOTHING TO DO with advancing religion – nothing AT ALL.

FL had said, earlier, that biology books teach that life arose spontaneously. Knowing that is not the case, I asked for referenes. FL said:

Looks that way. In the biology textbook used in my hometown’s high schools (Holt, “Biology”, 2004) and in the evolution textbook used in my hometown’s university biology department (Volpe-Rosenbaum, “Understanding Evolution 6th ed”, McGrawHill, 2000 or 2001), it is taught and accepted as science. (Same for Freeman-Herron’s text too.)

Haven’t yet found a textbook where it was NOT taught or NOT accepted as science. Have you?

The Holt book does not say, anywhere, that it is a fact that life arose without God. Nor does any other book in use in the U.S. in high schools. I asked for a citation – you list the whole book. I challenge you to show us the language, please.

The Volpe-Rosenbaum book does not ring a bell with me – but I doubt that it is as sloppy as creationists usually are, FL. Again – citation, please. Quotes would be better.

American high school biology texts present the facts: There is ample evidence that the essential chemicals of life can arise spontaneously, there is tantalizing evidence that life itself arises spontaneously, but the issue is not settled by any means.

That is why ID folks want to teach the controversy: The facts are so damaging to the ID case. They hope to fuzz over the facts.

And the critical facts here are that science textbooks do not present an atheistic view, nor endorse it, but they do present a wealth of facts that tend to falsify ID.

Why on earth are you working on a scientific theory of ID for a *religion* class.

Odd that you should ask—there’s quite a bit of interest in the philosophy and religious studies fields concerning the subject. I saw an article in the Journal of Religious Studies, for example, several months ago. Wm. Rowe’s college-level philosophy of religion textbook (the 3rd edition) even mentions the ID hypothesis for a few paragraphs, while discussing the Design and Cosmological Arguments in general. The interest is definitely there.

Also, fwiw, religious people are sometimes just plain interested in the topic, as well as the overall evolution-vs-alternatives debate. Both young and old. Hence the importance of being able to address the topic for a religion class, whether said class is being offered by a university, or at a local Sunday School or Catechism class, or just plain Whatnot.

******************

I found one

Ah, yes. Thank you for searching, steve. Let’s see now. What is this high-school level biology textbook in which the standard prebiotic evolution hypothesis is not taught or accepted as science?

Why, it’s “Introduction to Quantum Mechanics” by David Griffiths. Uhhh, yeah, I see. I’m sure the high school biology teachers get a lot of mileage out of it with the biology kids.….(insert smile here). Thanks again, steve.

******************

Ed says,

The Holt book does not say, anywhere, that it is a fact that life arose without God. Nor does any other book in use in the U.S. in high schools. I asked for a citation — you list the whole book. I challenge you to show us the language, please.

The Volpe-Rosenbaum book does not ring a bell with me — but I doubt that it is as sloppy as creationists usually are, FL. Again — citation, please. Quotes would be better.

Well, sure, Ed. Sounds like you don’t have a copy of either book with you, but that’s okay.

FL had said, earlier, that biology books teach that life arose spontaneously. Knowing that is not the case, I asked for references.

Let’s start with Holt page 257. “Therefore, the subject of how life might have originated naturally and spontaneously remains a subject of intense interest.”

“Spontaneously.” There you go. Also, the above quotation has bearing on another statement of yours:

The Holt book does not say, anywhere, that it is a fact that life arose without God.

I’m sorry, but “naturally and spontaneously” means exactly what it means. No room for God in that phrasing, eh?

Further, the Holt book says “Most scientists think that life developed through natural chemical and physical processes.” (p 253)

Again, they are careful to ascribe the origin of life to natural processes ONLY. Chemical and physical processes. ONLY.

Finally, though the new Holt edition carefully avoids using the word “evolution” in Section 1 where these quotes are located, where do you suppose Section 1 is located? But of course—directly after the page marked in big letters, “UNIT 3: Principles of Evolution”.

Making sure the kids get the evo-picture, natch.

*****

Let’s quickly do Volpe-Rosenbaum, the currently used college textbook. You say that quotes would be better? Then so be it—your humble servant shall serve ‘em right up.

First, let’s have a “spontaneous” quote again so that it’s clear that God gets no credit:

“Conditions on the primeval earth billions of years ago were assuredly different from present conditions, and the first form of life, or self-duplicating particle, did arise spontaneously from chemical inanimate substances.” (p 146.)

Secondly, other quotations of interest (that is, showing that you’re being presented with evolution as the cause for life originating on Earth) are:

“Moreover, RNA evidently preceded DNA in the evolution of life” (p 148)

“At some later stage in the evolutionary process, DNA took the place of RNA as the repository of genetic information.” (p 149)

So, Ed, there you go!

FL

FL, are you high? You might have possibly the worst reading comprehension problem I have ever seen.

Nope, I’m not high, and it doesn’t sound like you have a copy of either of the two textbooks either. Go get your own copies and offer your own assessment of what they say.

FL :-)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 8, column 2, byte 560 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 1, column 159, byte 159 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

The word “might” says that they are not teaching it as FACT but as supposition or speculation. That hardly matches up with the accusation that you made:

However, I didn’t claim that the textbook taught the evo-hypothesis as FACT. I’m well aware of the “might”; in fact, if you have a copy of the text, you’ll even see a couple “scientists disagree…” in there.

So for me, I never claimed that the text taught the evo-hypothesis as FACT. But I specifically said, “…taught AS SCIENCE”, which of course is clearly true.

As far as whether there is room for God in that phrasing, certainly the word “might” leaves that open

But NOT the word “spontaneously”, especially when that word is deliberately coupled with “naturally” as Holt clearly does.

The idea is that it happened ~on its own~ (spontaneous, undirected, as in undirected natural causes, which means no God need apply), and also it happened specifically ~naturally~, not supernaturally.

Also notice that in the same quote, the “might” quote, it’s not about the “subject of ~whether~ life might have originated…naturally and spontaneously”, nor is it about the “subject of ~if~ life might have originated…naturally and spontaneously”, but instead it’s specifically about the “subject of ~~how~~ life might have originated…naturally and spontaneously.”

IOW, you’re just supposed to automatically buy into the evo-claim that life originated “naturally and spontaneously”, the only remaining question being the not-yet-settled “how” of it.

Taken together, it all seems reasonably clear. Though the Holt textbook seeks to communicate the diversity of scientific opinion about “how” life supposedly evolved from non-living chemicals via chemical evolution, its presentation and wording stays squarely in line, naturalistically in line, with Lewontin’s famous quotation about refusing to “…allow a Divine Foot in the Door”.

FL

So if a meteorology textbook said that storms form ‘naturally and spontaneously’, FL would regard meteorology as being aggressively atheistic.

The more these Creationists open their mouths, the worse they look.

Should a science text simply pretend that curiosity about, or investigation of, how life originated simply doesn’t exist? Since investigation and scientific curiosity is very real in this area, mention would be omitted only for religious reasons. But if it IS mentioned, should a science text have a footnote (or more) devoted to how believers in some religions choose a posture with respect to this topic. So some think there are gods who created the conditions by magic, and others think there are gods who not only created the conditions, but then miracled them into accelerating the process of producing whatever we see. And for equal time, I imagine the text would have to go down quite a long list of creation myths from around the world, so as to leave nobody’s beliefs out.

But in that case, is this still a science text, and is any of this scientific in any way? I think FL is demanding that a science text take a religious position about the unknown. Specifically, HIS religious position.

FL Wrote:

However, I didn’t claim that the textbook taught the evo-hypothesis as FACT. I’m well aware of the “might”; in fact, if you have a copy of the text, you’ll even see a couple “scientists disagree … “ in there.

So for me, I never claimed that the text taught the evo-hypothesis as FACT. But I specifically said, “ … taught AS SCIENCE”,which of course is clearly true.

So let me see if I understand this: you object to a science book talking about a scientific hypothesis as science (although it is being shown as a highly contested hypothesis). The question I have is whether the possibility of organic material coming from a collection of inorganic material is a legitimate question of scientific inquiry. I believe that it is. It is certainly something that is testable, falsifiable and, while it can never be completely verified if life truly originated in that way, does present possibilities of how life originated.

As for your objection to the term “spontaneously”, I fail to see how that knocks God out of the picture. In the quote, spontaneous merely reinforces the term “natural”. In the context, they are essentially synonymous.

However, the sentence does, very plainly, show that scientists are looking at natural explanations instead of supernatural ones. Good. That’s their job and how it should be approached in a science class. It does clearly state that nothing conclusive has been found according to your statements.

So where’s the beef?

“So where’s the beef?”

nowhere. there never has been any meat to any of FL’s ramblings.

FL can you give me an example of what “non-living chemicals” and “living chemicals” are.

Wayne Francis Wrote:

FL can you give me an example of what “non-living chemicals” and “living chemicals” are.

Or even “what is a chemical?” As you probably know, most nonscientists think that there are fundamentally different “kinds” of matter, chemicals and the “natural” stuff. But that’s another story, though eerily similar to anti-evolution thinking.

Of course, it’s all chemicals, and life is a chemical system, emergent properties, “sum greater than its parts” etc,” not a “lump of chemicals.” And even if it needed something out of the ordinary to get it started, that has no bearing on evolution.

Note how FL slipped from the “evo-hypothesis” to “it happened…” to “evo-claim that life originated.” IOW, the evolution to abiogenesis bait-and-switch that no anti-evolutionist would leave home without.

Frank Schmidt Wrote:

Of course anyone who follows the PT discussions recognizes that - scratch an anti-evolutionist, find a fundamentalist.

Not always:

John A. Davison Wrote:

What better demonstration could there possibly be that I have reached both camps in this idiotic war of two stupid ideologies, Darwimpian atheist pseudo-materialism and Fundamentalist Bible Banging Baptist Bigotry.

Of course if one must make it an either-or, most Judeo-Christian religious leaders, including the last two Popes, are “Darwimpian atheist pseudo-materialists.”

Given that Davison has been limited to his own thread these days, it might be considerate (and useful) to not mention him in other threads. Some adage about sleeping dogs and/or dead horses might apply here.

Why on earth are you working on a scientific theory of ID for a *religion* class.

Odd that you should ask

Not at all odd, though, that you didn’t answer . …

—-there’s quite a bit of interest in the philosophy and religious studies fields concerning the subject.

No kidding, you mean there is really interest amongst philosophers and theolgians in ID philosophy and religion?

Again I ask ————– what has ID religion and philosophy to do with science.

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 25, column 2, byte 1685 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank Wrote:

Again I ask ——————— what has ID religion and philosophy to do with science.

An unsolicied interpretation from a non-expert in religion or philosophy:

There’s a religion/philosophy called “scientism” that, AIUI, has no members (What would one call a member anyway? “Scientist” has already been taken.) There’s another religion/philosophy called “anti-scientism” which has all sorts of members, with all sots of different ideas, and the only common thread of equating science with scientism. ID is fast becoming the central “science” of anti-scientism.

An unsolicied interpretation from a non-expert in religion or philosophy:

There’s a religion/philosophy called “scientism” that, AIUI, has no members (What would one call a member anyway? “Scientist” has already been taken.) There’s another religion/philosophy called “anti-scientism” which has all sorts of members, with all sots of different ideas, and the only common thread of equating science with scientism. ID is fast becoming the central “science” of anti-scientism.

IDers, of course, can’t use the word “atheism” publicly, sicne it would make their religious agenda too clearly apparent for any judge to ignore. Hence, IDers have replaced “atheism” with a whole series of buzzwords and code words, each of which has brief fame and then fades into disuse when it fails to impress anyone. So far, we have had IDers blithering about their opposition to “darwinism”, “materialism”, “naturalism” and “scientism” (indeed, lately, IDers have taken to DEFINING THEMSELVES solely and only on the basis of their opposition to “darwinism/naturalism/materialism/whateverism”). They all, of course, mean the same thing — “atheism”.

I **strongly encourage** the IDers to make this argument in court. Please. Please, please, please. Pretty please with sugar and honey on it.

Moses Wrote:

Rabbits aren’t ruminents and they don’t chew their cud.

Ah, but they used to! God originally made rabbits as ruminants. But after a while, he decided they were pretty tasty, and it was a shame no one could eat ‘em, so He performed a miracle and turned them into non-ruminants. There was a thing about it in a really early version of the Bible, but one of the monks spilled beer all over that page, making it unreadable. It got left out after that.

Insects have 6 legs, not 4.

That just means you have to pull two of ‘em off & let it walk a few steps before you eat it. You’re also allowed to pull off any wings, so it can’t fly away.

Seriously, anyone know a good site that lists other such blatant contradictions from the Bible? I’ll Google for some, but would be interested if anyone knows of particularly good ones.

Re “God originally made rabbits as ruminants. But after a while, he decided they were pretty tasty, and it was a shame no one could eat ‘em, so He performed a miracle and turned them into non-ruminants.” But, I thought the cud chewers were the ones people were allowed to eat? The ones with hooves, anyway.

Henry

qetzal,

while it is fiction, you might enjoy reading the Davinci Code, if you haven’t yet.

Even tho it is fiction, the author uses correct biblical references and current and past catholic traditions to form the foundation for much of the plot… and the christians come out looking pretty dim.

an interesting read.

cheers

qetzal Wrote:

Seriously, anyone know a good site that lists other such blatant contradictions from the Bible? I’ll Google for some, but would be interested if anyone knows of particularly good ones.

I often use the fantastic Skeptic’s Annotated Bible. Great resource, and they even split the biblical contradictions into categories, if you’re interested in specific subjects.

Henry J Wrote:

But, I thought the cud chewers were the ones people were allowed to eat? The ones with hooves, anyway.

Yeah, I that didn’t make much sense, did it? Not to worry. Under the circumstances, I invoke the “ID Defense.” ;-)

Thanks for the suggested links, jeebus & Jeff.

Sir_Toejam, no I never read The Da Vinci Code. Unfortunately, I did read his subsequent book, Angels And Demons. Hated it. Very unlikely to read Da Vinci Code, as a result. I appreciate the suggestion, though.

FL said:

However, I didn’t claim that the textbook taught the evo-hypothesis as FACT. I’m well aware of the “might”; in fact, if you have a copy of the text, you’ll even see a couple “scientists disagree … “ in there.

So for me, I never claimed that the text taught the evo-hypothesis as FACT. But I specifically said, “ … taught AS SCIENCE”, which of course is clearly true.

Then I do not understand your complaint in the least. Of course it’s science – and now you appear to be saying that science is tentative, as indeed it is. In short, you’re agreeing that the books have the facts correct, and they correctly categorize the facts in science and as science.

So what are you complaining about? Do you even remember what your beef was, FL?

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Jack Krebs published on May 19, 2005 9:55 AM.

The Dmanisi skulls and creationism was the previous entry in this blog.

A Call to Citizens for Science is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter