Kansas BOE wants to lie to students - Part I

| 46 Comments | 1 TrackBack

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the Kansas Board of Education has given preliminary approval to a set of science standards that have a strong anti-evolution bias. This bias becomes apparent literally before page one of the standards, and is apparent in any number of ways. Previously, I blogged on a change in language early in the document that singles out evolution, making it appear to be more dubious than other theories listed. Today, I am going to begin to examine some of the actual standards and benchmarks most affected by the KBOE’s efforts to “improve” the way evolution is taught in their state. This will be the first in a series of posts looking at the specifics, since there are way, way too many objectionable areas to cover in a single post.

I’m going to start with an addition that demonstrates true chutzpah. (For those of you not familiar with the Yiddish term, it is difficult to translate directly, but can best be described as the quality displayed by a man who craps on his neighbor’s doorstep, then knocks and asks to borrow some toilet paper.) Kansas’ contribution to the art of chutzpah is found on page 78 of the standards, which are available as a pdf file on the Kansas Department of Education website:

Read more (at The Questionable Authority).

1 TrackBack

So why do scientists remain unconvinced? Perhaps it's because ID is just the old argument from design warmed up, and this argument was demolished nearly 150 years ago with the publication of Darwin's "On the Origin of Species". Scientists don't parti... Read More

46 Comments

Thanks very much for this work, Mike. During the hearings, we repeatedly made the point that our draft (Draft 2) of the standards is metaphysically neutral, and that the Minority’s insertion of the word “unguided” was meant to make the draft support atheism in order to justify their inclusion of “intelligent design.”

This deliberate conflation of a scientific, empirical conclusion about the idea of “unguided” and the idea of divine guidance is at the heart of the issue.

“I’m going to start with an addition that demonstrates true chutzpah. (For those of you not familiar with the Yiddish term, it is difficult to translate directly, but can best be described as the quality displayed by a man who craps on his neighbor’s doorstep, then knocks and asks to borrow some toilet paper.) “

Thats a good one MIke, the more traditional defintion, is a person who murders their parents and then pleads for leniency because they’re an orphan.

Until Alvin Plantinga and Huston Smith persuaded them to change the wording in 1995, the NABT did have a statement that

The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments. (Emphasis added.)

If the NABT had stuck by their guns in 1995, would the KBoE’s document be valid?

Mike Dunford wrote:

There is [] also a subtle but important difference between saying that something “has no discernable direction or goal” and saying that something is “unguided”. The first statement is a description of a simple scientific fact. The second is a non-scientific, philosophical assessment, and does not necessarily follow from the first. And this is not an innocent or innocuous mistake.

One thread down here on PT, Greg Peterson has written:

… evolution as an unguided, contingent, materialistic process—as it must be for science even to study it…

It appears to me that Mike and Greg have a fundamental disagreement about the scientificity of the unguidedness of evolution. Am I right?

For all the mendacity in the Kansas standards, and respectful of all the work you’ve put into this issue so far (and hopefully will continue to do), I don’t think the insertion of the word “unguided” into the standards is anywhere near as malicious as it’s being made out to be.

To begin with, the night-and-day distinction in plain English between “no discernable direction or goal” and “unguided” that you seek to draw simply isn’t supported by either everyday language or the technical language of philosophy of science. To say that one of them is clearly “a statement of scientific fact” while the other one is clearly “a non-scientific, philosophical assessment, and does not necessarily follow from the first” is a distinction so subtle that its weight can’t be carried by the language.

Certainly, the singling-out of evolution as unguided to the exclusion of gravity and plate techtonics as being unguided is a political ploy on the part of the Kansas creationists to set up evolution as atheistic. But as Lenny and others never tire of pointing out (nor should they ever tire), evolution is no more atheistic than the germ theory of disease, or dishawasher repair, or what have you. So of course there’s an ulterior political motive that deserves to be criticized, but it is the singling out of evolution as unguided that is the problem, not the description itself. Who could seriously object to gravity being described as “unguided”?

If anything, the pedagogical case for describing evolution as unguided is even stronger. The single most common misunderstanding of evolution by natural selection is that it is “a process of randomness”; after this, I would venture that by far the next most common misunderstanding of evolution among laypersons is that it is goal-directed. Surely we’ve all lost count of the number of people asking things like “how did birds ‘know’ to grow feathers?” or “if evolution is ‘trying’ to create intelligence, why aren’t more species intelligent like us?” I submit that one simply cannot give pedagogically appropriate responses to these misunderstandings without explaining that evolution is necessarily not “trying” to produce intelligent life, and necessarily does not and cannot “know” to grow certain features in advance of need. To give these kind of corrections and then to quibble and hand-wring about the use of the word “unguided” seems, at the very least, an overreaction.

I would go even further: the genius of Darwin and Wallace in proposing natural selection as a mechanism consists in its heart in showing how teleological effects can be explained in the absence of foresight. This is a fundamentally different sort of explanation from replacing, say, glass spheres holding planets in place with gravity holding planets in place. Sure, in both cases, if you’re willing to define god(s) in such a way as to be invincible to analysis, you can keep belief in god(s) as a “first cause” or maybe “an underlying ontological ground”, but if a student doesn’t understand that evolution explains adaptive complexity without reference to intelligent foresight, then they have simply misunderstood evolution. What role would such a person understand natural selection to play? If you refuse to say that evolution is unguided, then in a Bizzaro-world inversion of Laplace students will look at natural selection and say, “teacher, I have no need of that hypothesis.”

Mike Dunford - Perhaps the issue is if evolution is internally (self) or externally guided?

As least the Kansas Board of Education is teaching its students to be skeptical of its governmental bodies.

Nat Whilk Wrote:

It appears to me that Mike and Greg have a fundamental disagreement about the scientificity of the unguidedness of evolution. Am I right?

What does “unguided” mean? A slot canyon guides me when I go hiking. The lay of the land guides the course of a stream. Thermodynamics, and other factors, guide the rate of a chemical reaction. In no case (probably including my hike) is there some sort of intelligence involved. The “complexification” of life from its earliest forms was probably mediated by some mathematical principles – in other words, guided by laws of nature. Perhaps it would be better to ask Mike and Greg whether they agree that an unseeable, unmeasurable, metaphysical intelligence guides any natural process, including evolution. I’m willing to place a small wager on the outcome.

So of course there’s an ulterior political motive that deserves to be criticized, but it is the singling out of evolution as unguided that is the problem, not the description itself.

Amen, brother. I quite agree.

Perhaps the issue is if evolution is internally (self) or externally guided?

Um, externally guided by what?

How? Where? When?

Show us an example of evolution being “externally guided”. Show us what the “external guider” does, specifically, to carry out its “guiding”. Show us what mechanisms it uses to guide whatever the heck you think it is guiding. Show us where we can see such mechanisms in action guiding anything.

I want to hear about those guiding mechanisms too. “Infinitely-long wavelength” EM waves were good for a laugh, hopefully the next thing will be too.

Whoa Lenny! I’m a good guy!

*points to white hat*

I know ID is a crock of you know. I was just trying to help clear up the “guided vs. unguided” thing. Evolution clearly has some internal guidence / optimization.

Perhaps it would be better to ask Mike and Greg whether they agree that an unseeable, unmeasurable, metaphysical intelligence guides any natural process, including evolution. I’m willing to place a small wager on the outcome.

How much? If I understand their positions, Greg would say no and Mike would say that science has nothing to say on the matter. And I think Hiero5ant would say that the latter is pedagogically weak.

Evolution clearly has some internal guidence / optimization.

How so? It seems to me quite the opposite – evolution is guided by environmental contingencies. One could maintain that God sent a meteorite toward the Earth 65 million years ago as part of his plan to create man, and I don’t know of anything in the theory of evolution that contradicts that. It’s kind of funny to see Lenny, of all people, saying that it isn’t possible for believers to see the hand of God, that evolution contradicts theistic views.

Nat Whelk Wrote:

It appears to me that Mike and Greg have a fundamental disagreement about the scientificity of the unguidedness of evolution. Am I right?

I think they have a disagreement, but not a fundamental one. But such a disagreement has no bearing on the validity of the theory of evolution, if that’s what you were hoping for.

Kenneth Miller Wrote:

The eight dissenting members worry that teaching evolution as suggested by the majority of the committee “will necessarily have the effect of causing students to reach an uninformed, but ‘reasoned’ decision that they, and all other human beings, are merely natural occurrences, accidents of nature that lack intrinsic purpose.” In reality, nothing in the standards suggested by the writing committee would cause students to reach such a conclusion.

That’s interesting, because my own early science education certainly played a causal role in my reaching such a conclusion. I think any science education that doesn’t give students strong reasons to reach the same conclusion, or to at least conclude that there’s no evidence of them being other than an accident of nature, is deficient. And even if I’m totally wrong, the position that Kenneth Miller takes sets up a conflict with atheists, by basically asserting that their views are unreasoned and baseless.

Actually, I left out the juiciest part, which immediately follows the quote I gave:

Kenneth Miller Wrote:

Ironically, only the statements suggested by the eight dissenting members would actually produce such a misconception

Unless I’ve misunderstood the referent of “such”, Miller is saying that “they, and all other human beings, are merely natural occurrences, accidents of nature that lack intrinsic purpose” is “a misconception”, which is anything but “metaphysically neutral”.

it seems to me that the issue is purposelessness being the logical consequence of unguidedness. natural selection is not purposeless since it serves to adapt (to some degree) organisms to their changing local environments. this does not require guiding since overproduction of offspring will provide (through genetic variability) enough raw material for natural selection to take place. The genetic alterations that provide the variability do not require guiding either since it is not possible to predict exactly which changes will provide a reproductive/survival benefit ahead of the emergent changing local environment. Environmental changes to a great degree fall into scientific disciplines that are not biological. The teleology that is added on to this process to bring it all into a purposeful event for our benefit and to give meaning to our lives exists entirely outside the realm of science. This does not mean that it has no place in education in the humanities department at the high school level.

Whoa Lenny! I’m a good guy!

*points to white hat*

I know ID is a crock of you know. I was just trying to help clear up the “guided vs. unguided” thing. Evolution clearly has some internal guidence / optimization.

Well, I wasn’t talking to you specifically.

And I’d still like an IDer to explain to me what this “external guidance” is and how it is accomplished.

It’s kind of funny to see Lenny, of all people, saying that it isn’t possible for believers to see the hand of God, that evolution contradicts theistic views.

I said no such thing.

Please don’t be so arrogant as to presume to tell me what I am saying. I know *exactly* what I am saying.

Please don’t be so arrogant as to presume to tell me what I am saying. I know *exactly* what I am saying.

Don’t be so arrogant as to tell me what I can’t say. And I wasn’t telling you – you were an object of my sentence. And regardless of what you “know”, you said – by implication – what I claimed you said.

(more dick-waving from TS deleted)

(yawn)

Gee, I remember when this blog used to be a GOOD place to hang out . …

(sigh)

natural selection is not purposeless since it serves to adapt (to some degree) organisms to their changing local environments.

Serves who or what? And what organisms? Natural selection doesn’t operate on organisms, it operates on allele frequency.

Purpose requires intent, but natural selection has no intent. In fact, natural selection isn’t a thing at all, it’s more a description, a synopsis, of the effect of survival of the fittest. Because those organisms that are more fit – relative to their environment – to produce offspring are the organisms that are more likely to produce offspring, the genes they carry – the genes that built them – and pass to their offspring increase in relative frequency within the population. No purpose at all, just an outcome.

Lenny Wrote:

(more dick-waving from TS deleted)

What is such a comment, and blather about kicking people’s asses out, but dick waving? I just posted a substantive response to pro from dover’s statement about natural selection not being purposeless, only to encounter yet another of your whiny posts. When’s the last time you’ve posted anything substantive, Lenny, other than your questions for trolls – which are fine as far as they go – or your discussion of the scientific method, which I referred to as a tour de force? I was disappointed that you didn’t repeat that when T. Russ explicitly asked what scientific method you had in mind; that would have been a good move.

Gee, I remember when this blog used to be a GOOD place to hang out .…

There are many options, Lenny.

Purpose requires intent, but natural selection has no intent.

Actually, I misphrased – or misconceived – that. For natural selection to have a purpose, there must be someone or something that intends to achieve something by it, the way a can opener has a purpose because we intend to open cans with it. But we have no evidence of such a someone or something in regard to natural selection. However, we could say that it performs a function, since that doesn’t involve intent – we certainly talk about the function of hearts, feathers, etc. But what function does it perform? To make organisms that are adapted to their environment? I don’t think so – natural selection basically refers to the fact that the environment filters for (genes that produce) organisms well adapted to it, so to say that that is the function of natural selection is like saying that the function of natural selection is natural selection. Or the function of evolution is … I can’t think of anything that fills the blank.

ts wrote:

I think they have a disagreement, but not a fundamental one.

I would call it fundamental because it shows up in the very definition of evolution that each accepts as scientifically meaningful. I would also call it fundamental because when the KBoE used the language Greg used, Mike said it made the KBoE liars.

ts continues:

But such a disagreement has no bearing on the validity of the theory of evolution, if that’s what you were hoping for.

And what if that’s not what I was hoping for?

There are many options, Lenny.

You’re absolutely right.

This is my goodbye, everyone. I am not even remotely interested in all the dick-waving here. When the loonies leave, someone let me know so I can come back.

In the meantime, anyone who wants to say “Hi” to me can drop in the DebunkCreation list at Yahoogroups. The dicks won[‘t be following, since religious discussions are OT at DC.

I look forward to the time when PT becomes useful again, instead of just a private forum for certain people to (1) preach their religious opinions and (2) pick fights.

Take care, everyone.

But such a disagreement has no bearing on the validity of the theory of evolution, if that’s what you were hoping for.

And what if that’s not what I was hoping for?

Then such a disagreement still has no bearing on the validity of the theory of evolution, of course.

my error. i meant to say natural selection serves to adapt populations (not individual organisms) to their changing local environments. However there’s a point of contention with ts which is that in my view it is the organism that is the agent being selected and not the allele since only organisms can reproduce and each allele is in some respect at “the mercy of” the other alleles carried by the individual. I think i disagree with Dawkins as well who voices that kind of opinion. Maybe that makes me arrogant to dispute the master. Also “purpose” is a value and “guided” is a process. i really dont think that there is any actual intention to guide but i see more of “the invisible hand” that Adam Smith used as a metaphor when describing his theory of capitalism. the ordered ecology produced by natural selection is entirely an unintended consequence. Also Lenny, youre a key person here, a lot of us get battered about in this arena it isnt necessary, but it does happen.

i meant to say natural selection serves to adapt populations (not individual organisms) to their changing local environments.

Well, I would just say that natural selection results in populations being adapted to .… No purposefulness involved, that I can see.

However there’s a point of contention with ts which is that in my view it is the organism that is the agent being selected and not the allele since only organisms can reproduce and each allele is in some respect at “the mercy of” the other alleles carried by the individual.

But the other alleles form part of the environment for a given allele. And we talk about something being selected for. To say that the organism is being selected seems to just say that those offspring that are born are those offspring that are born; it doesn’t provide any predictive power. But we know that the environment favors certain traits, and expect those traits to appear in organisms, and in certain frequencies in the population. There’s nothing like that we can say at the organism level, that I can see.

Maybe that makes me arrogant to dispute the master.

Not at all, but it would be arrogant to say that Dawkins can’t dispute you, or that it would be arrogant of him to do so, or that he makes erroneous leaps of logic so numerous that you can’t even begin to name them.

Also “purpose” is a value and “guided” is a process.

I understand the latter and mentioned the changing environment “guiding” natural selection, but I’m not quite clear on the first part.

i really dont think that there is any actual intention to guide but i see more of “the invisible hand” that Adam Smith used as a metaphor when describing his theory of capitalism. the ordered ecology produced by natural selection is entirely an unintended consequence.

Good metaphor and nice turn of phrase. :-)

Also Lenny, youre a key person here, a lot of us get battered about in this arena it isnt necessary, but it does happen.

Lenny has taken a stance toward me that’s a bit like the stance that the creationists take toward evolution, or that Katarina takes toward Dawkins. As a result, evolution, Dawkins, and I get bashed by the “victims”.

ts

Really, what do you think you achieve here?

Alan Wrote:

Really, what do you think you achieve here?

More than you, that’s for sure. Why not stick to the subject, Alan, and not worry so much about me.

ts Wrote:

More than you, that’s for sure.

That’s no great claim, but I’m still intrigued to know what goal your posts are intended to achieve.

Well, there’s no functioning Bathroom wall at the moment.

I am sorry Lenny is leaving. I am also sorry if I was preaching in the other thread, I didn’t mean to, just wanted to answer ts’ questions honestly. I won’t talk about my religious beliefs any more, but I think the rest of us should also consider separating the science from the opinions/beliefs/metaphysical conclusions, and refrain from making such conclusions based on the science, that is just what ID pretends to do. Not that anyone has to shut up, just keep the science and the philosophy separate. That is what ID fails to do, but we are smarter. Right?

I agree, Katarina. It does seem counter-productive, when threads descend into religious debate, which is a side issue that plays into the hands of the IDers and their attempt to claim Darwinism as a religion.

You haven’t been paying attention, Alan, and neither was Lenny. He kept accusing me of turning these into religious debates when the top level articles have been all about religion. And that’s a consequence of fact, as PZ Myers and many other people have pointed out in the “Julian Sanchez has it wrong” and “My Response to Matzke” threads, that the evolution/ID debate is fundamentally about a clash between science and religion, much as some people here would like to deny it. Those threads seem to have allowed a lot of atheists to express some views that they’ve kept pent up, while some of the less sophisticated thinkers continued to yap at them about how they mustn’t be critical of religion because it’s bad strategy – without ever managing to explain why that is.

Lenny’s problem went way beyond not paying attention. I was his bogeyman, the source, in his view, of all his troubles at PT, but those daggers he thought he was throwing at me scattered a lot wider. Someone wrote at pharyngula: I’m especially dismayed at the implication by one PT poster (whom I once admired) that “ideological atheists” should be kicked out (from what?) because their views run contrary to some percieved strategy. (And what, exactly, is an “ideological atheist”?)

ts writes “You haven’t been paying attention, Alan”

That’s certainly true. I don’t have time to more than dip in occasionally. I still, as an outside and fascinated observer, see the fundamental issue as political. The unholy alliance of Republican opportunists, fundie leaders etc. are exploiting belief to gain and hold power. It is possible to imagine a scenario when political and, indeed religious,debate are compromised. Why not defend freedom of thought, even if you might despise the views of others. Defending a broad education and the freedom to develop and express ideas, might produce the secularisation you perhaps seek as a by-product.

I defend freedom of speech as best I can. I’m not clear as to how freedom of thought is threatened or how I might defend it, but if it is and if I can then I should like to. I certainly don’t want people to have views I despise, so I try to talk them out of it, but I abhore coercion. But this all applies to autonomous adults in autonomous settings. Certainly we don’t want students to be free to think whatever might come into their heads or whatever might be imposed upon them from erroneous sources; we want them to develop and express ideas, but not exactly freely. The classroom is not a free speech zone. And they should have broad knowledge – that’s different from broad education. You might consider tightening up your concepts, or perhaps it’s just my difficulty in grasping your intent. As for the unholy alliance, I definitely agree.

P.S. On achievement, I’ve learned quite a bit here and have developed some new insights, one of which, the scientific method as an epistemic source, unassailable by Humean scepticism, I think is very powerful. And I developed the ideas around this in trying to respond to people claiming that science and religion are both just as acceptable or equally rest on unproven assumptions. OTOH, I wonder when the last time was that Lenny developed a new insight; he and I seemed to clash because we had radically different goals, attitudes, and styles, despite having many common beliefs about evolution, ID, and such.

ts

The wedge strategy to control what is taught in schools is the threat to freedom, because a long game is being played here, and gaining a grip on what can be taught to young people is a key to building their political power base. This seems so much more important to address, challenge and reverse, rather than discussing the rationality of personal belief.

We should concentrate on debunking the cynical dishonesty of this unholy alliance, and engaging wherever possible with those who are misguided or misinformed, encouraging them to broaden their horizons.

I’m sure the fundamentalist leadership fear the exposure of their young people to real science will inevitably weaken their grip, and rightly so. It just seems that the vehement expression of anti-religious views is somewhat counter-productive, allowing the IDers to push their Darwinism = Atheism line.

I’ve also learned quite a bit here, for which I’m very grateful to contributors. My intent (as much as I could claim one) would be to see people engaging in geniune debate, such that insights are indeed developed, knowledge is improved and prejudices reconsidered.

PS When I said broad education,I was thinking unrestricted by any political dogma. I disagree about the classroom. Surely one can have a civilised discussion with youngsters without a descent into anarchy.

I think your clash with Lenny has more to do with ego (and I include Lenny) than goals.

OK, maybe my beef with your posts is that I don’t understand them, for example I just looked up epistemic, and I’m still not clear. I did have three years of under-graduate biochemistry and can tie my own shoelaces, so your posts could be sailing over other people’s heads too.:-)

Re PR (since science journals are pretty much only read by those who already have a decent education and school education is already corrupted by some cowardly, ignorant or dishonest creationist teachers): Can PT etc take over (or start) a radio, TV or satellite channel (or at least generate some programming)? Or is the internet approximately all that’s available. The religious extremists have churches etc (and often the silence or collusion of the less extreme members) instead of reputable but much more limited (by comprehension as well as interest and culture) circulation things like journals. Neither science nor atheism has such a major lowest-common-denominator cultural outlet. Plus the creationists may well publish more (quantity an quality) popular or trashy books (rather by definition on the latter!).

The problem with being a scientist is the drive to be precise/accurate which leads to all these hypertext-like parentheses. :-D

Money’s the key, SEF, but, whatever else you can say about the fundie leadership, you can’t deny they can raise the dough.

ts,

Is it possible that you have made the assumption that the main use people have had for religion in the past was its explanatory power, but that now it is no longer needed, since science and thechnology have come a long way to explain natural phenomena?

I would argue that people seek religion more for comfort, stability, and sort of a solid foundation, than for logical reasons, or for its explanatory power of the natural world. Sure, it’s nice if they can tie explanations in that fit in with natural observation, but this is not the main reason people embrace religion. I just wondered if you had considered that, and if you thought it important.

Alan Wrote:

I disagree about the classroom. Surely one can have a civilised discussion with youngsters without a descent into anarchy.

I didn’t say otherwise. But neither the teacher, who must follow a curriculum, nor the students, who are subject to the teacher’s direction and control, have freedom of speech.

Alan Wrote:

I think your clash with Lenny has more to do with ego (and I include Lenny) than goals.

We all have one. But I think there’s more to it than that. Harold, as Lenny did (but not by name) has now called for me to be banned – hey, I might vote for it myself; I obviously spend way too much time here. But it’s interesting that both Lenny and Harold first developed their animostiy toward me in the same conversation, one in which Lenny kept repeating the same challenge over and over, to use the scientific method to answer whether murder is wrong, even after I had agreed that’s not possible but that it wasn’t a refutation of what I and Don P had said, which was that science can address anything in the world. And the dispute with Harold was about science and religion – but this was in an old thread where no one other than Harold, Lenny, Don P, and I were posting, not like these recent threads where the article topic was explicitly about religion. Anyway, Harold got extremely emotional and wrote a long rant about what a horrible human being I am. When I referred to that as “an ad hominem rant”, he insisted that it wasn’t and went into another rant about people like me accusing others of ad hominems and even that we always use that phrase (a weird complaint) and predicting that I would follow him around here and insult him – which of course I didn’t, but he did try a few times to bait me. That seems to me rather pathological.

OK, maybe my beef with your posts is that I don’t understand them, for example I just looked up epistemic, and I’m still not clear.

I wrote about “the scientific method as an epistemic source, unassailable by Humean scepticism”. Epistemology is “the study or theory of the origin, nature, methods, and limits of knowledge” – so I’m saying that the scientific method is a source of knowledge, a way of obtaining knowledge. I could have just said that, but “epistemic” stresses that this is about fundamentals, about what it takes for something to be knowledge. The scientific method doesn’t just make truth claims, it’s a reliable method for making truth claims that actually come true; it provides fulfilled predictions. Humean scepticism is about the fact that inductive conclusions aren’t deductive conclusions, they aren’t logically necessary – the sun has always risen in the west before but it might not tomorrow; the “laws” of physics are just summaries of our observations, the universe doesn’t have to keep acting the same way. The point about “unassailable by Humean scepticism” is that the scientific method as a source of knowledge doesn’t depend on inductive reasoning being valid; the predictions really do come true. And since they do, we are warranted to use the scientific method, especially since it’s the only game in town that is a reliable source of knowledge. Per Hume, the world might go crazy and unpredictable tomorrow, in which case the scientific method would be of no use. But that’s no reason not to continue using it, to continue making predictions which sort of magically come true.

I might be all wet, but I hope what I had in mind is a least a little bit clearer. :-)

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Mike Dunford published on August 12, 2005 3:14 AM.

One Reason Evolutionists Are Losing the PR Battle was the previous entry in this blog.

Maryland 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