Rio Rancho Board: No plans to revisit Science Policy

| 57 Comments

The Rio Rancho School Board met again on Sept. 19th, and the Rio Rancho Observer reported on Sept. 22nd that Board president Lisa Cour said there are

no current plans to revisit that decision.

“That decision,” of course, is Rio Rancho’s adoption of “Science Policy 401,” discussed previously here.

Also, on the preceding Sunday, the Flying Spaghetti Monster made a glorious appearance on the Observer’s Editorial Page. fsm.jpg

FSM’s appearance in the Observer was part of a larger cartoon I did, available in its entirety here (430 K).

Here is another snippet. The ‘toon was titled “Battle of the Designers.”

jahweh.jpg

The Observer also noted that

“Intelligent Design is not being taught,” clarified Superintendent Dr. Sue Cleveland, although “students may bring those issues up.”

Three of the five people speaking Monday evening opposed the policy while two people, including one man who termed the board “brave and courageous in undertaking this policy” referred to several Biblical passages during his three minutes.

Dave Thomas, the president-elect of the New Mexico Academy of Sciences, told the board, “The science establishment of New Mexico [has] reacted to and responded to (Policy 401).”

“Science classrooms are no place to debate the finer points of religion,” said Thomas, who said he has a grand-niece attending school in Rio Rancho, “Please rescind this policy.”

Prof. Steve Steve also attended the Sept. 19th meeting, but was not allowed to speak.

Will the Rio Rancho Board ever revisit its unfortunate decision? Will Nell escape Snidely’s fiendish trap? Stay tuned …

57 Comments

Re the Battle of the Designers - I’m rooting for the one in the lower right.

;-)

Quetzalocoatl versus the flagellum! Oh My FSM, has public pseudoscientific discourse come to this?

*snicker*

No, no, I’m sure it’s a serious discourse that will be ironed out in the pages of the literature once experiments –

*chortle*

– once experiments that are falsifiable and reproducible are conducted –

*sniggle-snort-pffft*

Excuse me. That milk spurting from my nose has befouled my keyboard. I’ll be back once I clean it off.

Frankly I’m disgusted that Cthulhu wasn’t included.

Cthulhu doesn’t need to be included. When’s He’s good and ready, He’ll eat them all.

After sliming them, of course.

But, it’s turtles all the way down?

Btw, didn’t Odin have a patch over one eye?

Henry

Btw, didn’t Odin have a patch over one eye?

Dave tells me Odin now sports a very fetching – and convincing – glass eye.

No, no - you’re getting Odin mixed up with Mad-Eye Mooney.

Well, it appears that the darwinists still haven’t been able to come up with any arguments against ID. All I hear is just the same old drivel over and over again. My conclusion would be that darwinism is more philosophy than science! Natural selection can’t create anything beyond warped beaks in finches. Yet, this is the supposed smoking gun of macro-evolution. How pathetic! I would believe in darwinism but you made me lose my faith in it, all you at the Panda’s thumb. I’m not here to put any of you down, I’m just saying that your rhetoric is nothing more than evasions and ad hominems. Enough said!

Well, it appears that the darwinists still haven’t been able to come up with any arguments against ID.

Here’s one:

There is no evidence for ID.

Thank you and good night. I’ll be here all week.

Sometimes, hard to tell a real comment from a spoof comment:

My conclusion would be that darwinism is more philosophy than science!

anti-darwinist wrote

Natural selection can’t create anything beyond warped beaks in finches. Yet, this is the supposed smoking gun of macro-evolution. How pathetic! I would believe in darwinism but you made me lose my faith in it, all you at the Panda’s thumb.

Well, it sounds like you’re reading some other blog besides the Panda’s Thumb.

Here, we discuss topics like natural selection creating novel features all the time.

Here at the thumb we have many articles on pure science. What blog are you reading? If it’s drivel you’re after, why not join the obsequious fawners over at Evolution News & Views, or ID the Future?

Dave

I would believe in darwinism but you made me lose my faith in it, all you at the Panda’s thumb.

Great. I’m glad you’ve come to accept that evolution is the theory that best fits the available evidence, and have given up treating it as a faith proposition or something to “believe in.”

AntiDarwinist:

You are right. I managed to use the scientific method to determine ID is right. Just so were all on the same page, below is the outline I used to prove ID through the scientific method (taken from 9th grade science book):

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

Flagella on Bacteria exist.

2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the flagellum because there is no data historically or currently that shows how the flagellum evolved. More importantly the probability of this evolving is 1 in (55 x 55 x 55 x the millimeter thickness of Dembski’s Glasses all factorilized !)(1). Also The Flagella is irreducible complex because I say it is (2).

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

I predict the Spaghetti Monster can create a delicious beef Bolognese organism that grows on my shirt.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

After a late night of drinking at an Italian Restaurant I wake up to encrusted beef Bolognese on my lapel. Better the second time around. Thank you spaghetti Monster.

Stay Tuned. Next the spaghetti monster will allow me to observe his slicing of garlic in olive oil allah Paulie in Goodfellas.

Notes: 1 Ragu Commandment 5: All Mathematic majors are smarter than Biologists or Zoologists in the field of Biology or Zoology. Also, if you know a little bit about math you understand the probability of organisms evolving.

2 Ziti Commandment 6 — People from Lehigh don’t need peer review

Hey, if you are without peer…

What the heck is a Darwinist, anyway? Some type of person from the 19th century?

Darwin” or “derwin” are words which mean oak tree in Welsh.

Presumably, therefore, a darwinist would be a scientist who studies oak trees. Or, possibly, another with a special scientific interest in such trees, an arborist, perhaps, or a botanist, forester, or horticulturalist…

Odd that these creationist trolls keep bringing up the study of oak trees here. Maybe there’s some creationist site that has stirred up a phony controversy over the origin of oak galls or the dating of antique oak furniture?

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 7, column 2, byte 712 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

Anti-darwinist is right! I had faith in darwinism too! I lost my faith when I realized how stupid and inconceivable it was to believe how a living cell can form naturalistically. Supposedly, it can then evolve into humans over eons. What evidence is there for that? Well, there is none! However, when I was a darwinist I put down people who didn’t agree with my conclusions. I called them ‘creationists’ and ‘stupid quacks’. I tried to hunt them down and embarrass them. The more I did this, I began to realize how intolerant and blind my faith in darwinism was. I gave up on the whole theory. If you’re a darwinist, don’t make the same mistake I did. I’m not saying you should become a creationist or an ID advocate, however, don’t become intolerant and close-minded like these people.

I’m really touched by your comment. I’m a darwinist too! I’ve been losing faith in it as well. I think your right! Darwinism is just inadequate and the people here don’t want to admit that. I can’t believe I’m apostasizing from darwinism. Wow! It’s been so long since I’ve been a darwinist. I guess you and Anthony Flew were right after all.

Btw, didn’t Odin have a patch over one eye?

Aaaar, matey, indeed Cap’n Odin had but one eye, having willingly traded the other for wisdom. Brave indeed, and quite a contrast to them lubbers what would cover both eyes with a sack o’er their heads to keep wisdom from smacking ‘em in the face. I wish the Black Spot on ‘em.

For someone who “can’t make sense of all the evidence,” you sound remarkably sure of yourself.

I could just say that very few of us here are arborists, and that–even though I like Mission furniture as well as the next member of the reality community–we don’t really care all that much what you think of “darwinists,” whatever those may actually be.

And, yep, we’re so intolerant and close-minded that we’re going to leave your drive-by troll-rant up, so those looking on can make up their own minds about who has the better grasp of the, uh, evidence, and who has the more open minds (not to mention the ability to speak without spraying saliva…)

I’m bored with feeding the troll now. Where’s Lenny’s Pizza Guy at tonight, anyway? At least he was trying to be intentionally funny, and not just miserably peurile.

You guys deserve punishment for your comments!

Anti-Darwinist: Who are you to come here and tell everyone about your stupid problems with Darwinism?

I Can’t make sense of the evidence: NO ONE! I MEAN NO ONE, LEAVES DARWIN! HOW DARE YOU COME TO MY DARWINIAN BLOG AND DIVULGE ALL YOUR DRIVEL. ANYONE WHO QUESTIONS DARWINISM DESERVES TO SUFFER! YOU WILL SUFFER! DARWINIAN LAW REQUIRES SEVERE PUNISHMENT FOR YOUR APOSTASY!

Mark Copen: How dare you believe a creationist! In the word of Dawkins, you are “stupid, wicked and insane.” You were no darwinist, because no true darwinist leaves the faith. You are just a fake who didn’t know anything about darwinism.

Here I’am speaking my mind and you come to me with pure vitriol. This is why I lost my faith in darwinism, it’s nothing but a symbol of hate and intolerance. There’s no evidence you stupid fake. I’ve been a darwinist for 20 years. Who are you to tell me what to do? Darwinism isn’t a theory, it’s just religion masquerading as science. This is why you will lose the war to those stupid design theorists!

Burn in hell!

It looks like the darwinists are up to their usual scheming: name calling and evasions!

Mark Copen, I think you will be eaten first by the Great Cthulhu.

Ia Ia, Cthulhu Ftaghn!

I think we’re hearing the last verbal flailings of the disbelievers as they are consumed in the deep burning pits of the Pastafarian hell…

(Which, for some reason, look and smell just like oversized vats of spaghetti sauce simmering on professional-quality restaurant burners. Gosh, can that be the Galloping Gourmet laughing fiendishly in the background?)

Or we could be hearing the age of reason dawn on these unbelievers!

What is this? Like a bible-college field trip or something?

*ducks head outside, looks for schoolbus*

Comment #49332

Posted by Steviepinhead on September 23, 2005 05:09 PM (e) (s)

“Darwin” or “derwin” are words which mean oak tree in Welsh.

Presumably, therefore, a darwinist would be a scientist who studies oak trees. Or, possibly, another with a special scientific interest in such trees, an arborist, perhaps, or a botanist, forester, or horticulturalist…

Odd that these creationist trolls keep bringing up the study of oak trees here. Maybe there’s some creationist site that has stirred up a phony controversy over the origin of oak galls or the dating of antique oak furniture?

No, he’s saying we’re ents.

Spake Moses:

No, he’s saying we’re ents.

I’m not going to be the first to mention ents and f*rn*t*r* in the same breath. Hroom boom barrroom!

You know, while I strongly suspect that the argument by antidarwinist was a joke, I can’t actually distinguish it from the actual arguments usually made by design advocates.

Perhaps I should be using Dembski’s Explanatory Filter to tell the difference between arguments that happen by random stupidity and ones intelligently designed to be that inane ;)

DrFrank

RAMEN!

I believe “Anti Darwinist” is meant to be a spoof, i.e a sort of sock puppet of your average fundamentalist

You would think, as incapable as it is of detecting intelligent design, that Dembski’s EF would at least work well for detecting random stupidity.

But it doesn’t, darn it. It doesn’t really work very well for detecting anything… Hmmm, I wonder what the market would be for a non-detector?

Getting back to my point, however (one good thing about us pinheads, we’re never very far from our point!): Dembski has devised a very good random-stupidity detector, it’s just not his EF. Here’s how it works–you allow people of all kinds to post on Dembski’s blog for some given period of time. At the end of the time period, you then wait one more full day. Amazingly, posts that Dembski has not yet censored will contain a high proportion of random stupidity. Ain’t that cool!

Comment #49365

Posted by DrFrank on September 23, 2005 07:37 PM (e) (s)

You know, while I strongly suspect that the argument by antidarwinist was a joke, I can’t actually distinguish it from the actual arguments usually made by design advocates.

Perhaps I should be using Dembski’s Explanatory Filter to tell the difference between arguments that happen by random stupidity and ones intelligently designed to be that inane ;)

You mean like “Creationist Troll Timmy?” That one had me going…

No, my arguments are real alright. There more real than darwinian evolution!

You can take ID out of creationism but you can’t take the creationism out of ID. Why has it come to this? Creationism is dead. We’ve already beaten that dog. And it would help if we just stopped using their buzz words and providing direct correction like a brick to the head. Intelligent Design is just creationism dressed up for the courts. So let’s call it what it is … creationism. And further more, the greeks and the Romans beleived in their gods with as much conviction as the christians believe in theirs and look where they are … in a matchup with a flagellum.

Could one of the creationists who comment on this site please answer the following questions: 1) Why is a disbelief in Evolution almost exclusively confined to religious people (and very stronly connected with some, but not all, forms of Christianity)? 2) Why is it that most Scientists (who of course are of all faiths, and none)do belive in it? Don’t you think that they are the best people to judge issues in science? The answers come down to positions of faith. Of course we who are fascinated by the way the world really did come about bewlieve in evolution, but equally we know that our belief in it is unimportant - it’s true, and applies to all organisms whether they believe in it or not - it doesn’t matter whether you believe in the Atomic Theory, your TV and phone will still work according to its conclusions. If a better theory comes along (or rather an elaboration of the present one) we will enthusiastically support it, but until then logic, as measured by nature, contiues to demand that those not intellectually crippled by a religious faith will understand evolution as a beautiful idea concerning one aspect of our amazing universe. So come on God botherers, how come it’s only you who don’t believe in Evolution?

“anti-darwinist”, “Mark Copen”, “Burn the heretic”, “Darwin Lover”, “Steve is Wrong”, “I CAN’T MAKE SENSE OF THE EVIDENCE”, “Y E C”, and several other names all are attached to comments posted from the same IP address.

“No, my arguments are real alright. There more real than darwinian evolution!”

Anti-Darwinist, at least, is a legitimate creationist. You can tell by a careful reading of this cryptic message. Also, due to his/her lack of mis-spellings, I deduce a Baylor University education.

You mean like “Creationist Troll Timmy?” That one had me going…

And yet, “Creationist Troll, Apparently” really is a creationist troll. It’s subtle times we live in…

I think Dougy Adams said it best (one item changed for context):

“ … it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindboggingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.

“The argument goes something like this: ‘I refuse to prove that I exist,’ says God, ‘for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.’

‘But,’ says Man, ‘DNA is a dead giveaway, isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don’t. QED.’

‘Oh dear,’ says God, ‘I hadn’t thought of that,’ and promptly vanished in a puff of logic.

‘Oh, that was easy,’ says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

“Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo’s kidneys, but that didn’t stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book Well That About Wraps It Up For God.

It’s funny how you label me a creationist, in which I’m not. You see I was right after all. Anyone who doesn’t believe in Darwinism is labeled as a creationist. Just another sign of a failed hypothesis turned religion.

Speaking of the Flying Spaghetti Monster making an appearance, the FSM also had an appearance in the online comic Sore Thumbs

Comment #49435

Posted by anti-darwinist on September 24, 2005 11:20 AM (e) (s)

It’s funny how you label me a creationist, in which I’m not. You see I was right after all. Anyone who doesn’t believe in Darwinism is labeled as a creationist. Just another sign of a failed hypothesis turned religion.

You have an alternative position? Feel free to CONCISELY explain it.

I’ve found one test that distinguishes creationists from garden-variety not-yet-convinced-about-Darwin folk. The true creationist claims to understand evolution well, but can never offer a simple and accurate explanation of what evolution theory really is.

Normal folk who are just unconvinced will usually admit their lack of understanding.

My alternative is Panspermia!

Comment #49372

Posted by Moses on September 23, 2005 08:07 PM (e) (s)

You mean like “Creationist Troll Timmy?” That one had me going…

I have never been Creationist Troll Timmy. I used to be called Creationist Timmy, but that was different and has NOTHING TO DO with my support for intelligent design, which is extremely science based.

Comment #49425

Posted by GT(N)T on September 24, 2005 10:41 AM (e) (s)

“No, my arguments are real alright. There more real than darwinian evolution!”

Anti-Darwinist, at least, is a legitimate creationist. You can tell by a careful reading of this cryptic message. Also, due to his/her lack of mis-spellings, I deduce a Baylor University education.

Or perhaps Kentucky Bible College Book Larnin Institute or whatever that place is Dembski works.

Posted by anti-darwinist on September 24, 2005 09:54 PM (e) (s)

My alternative is Panspermia!

Chuckles, is that you?

anti-darwinist Wrote:

“My alternative is Panspermia!”

Of unevolved, uncreated, large mammals and plants and things? Boy, you do not want to be caught outside on the day that something like that happens again.

Something like that happened to a bowl of flowers and a blue whale didn’t it? Funny how it comes back to Douglas Adams.

How offensive, where’s Yggdrasil, were’s the squirrel? Arr, and tis not a bloody OAK, tis an ASH tree, ye ignorant twats!

I object!

I demand equal time to argue against the Flying Spaggetti Monster.…While its true that FSMism has old roots, the true origin of the universe and man has be revealed, and it was linguini not spagetti!!

Jeebs you may soon be worshiping spagettini as you descend into darkness.

Only Linguini has the strength and satisfying “bite” to save the world!! Onward FLM warriors!

Posted by I CAN’T MAKE SENSE OF THE EVIDENCE on September 23, 2005 05:48 PM (e) (s)

I lost my faith …I called them ‘creationists’ and ‘stupid quacks’. I tried to hunt them down and embarrass them. “

Better to hunt them down and EAT them so as to purify the race through natural selection.

also please be aware that FSMism has been proved false. Latest revelations and re-evaluations of ancient pasta boxes reveals that it was a Flying Linguine Monster that created man. Only Linguine was strong enough for the task. (definitely not spaghettini)

It’s not spaghetti or linguini - it’s PIZZA!

After all, when people report ufo’s, are they string shaped, or are they pizza shaped?

;)

As a stranger I feel like I must interject this. Isn’t it possible that all pasta and other Italian food monsters had a hand (tossed) part in are creation. Polythiem is a valid viewpoint.

I will accept ID when they publish something that can be replicated by a evolutionary biologist, geneticist or paleontologist, they are peer reviewed and there works published in a credible science publication. I think that the neocreationists are throwing around the term ‘Darwinism’ to make evolution sound like a religion, which it is not. It is as much of a religion as the theory of relativity or plate tectonics. ID may look like a science to some people but at one time astrology and alchemy were also considered sciences. Also, I think that neocreationists are calling the kettle black by claiming that people who support the observed reality of evolution ‘evasive’. Most researchers want there work to be peer reviewed and subject to testing and retesting of there data. Neocreationists complain every time there “theory” is criticized. (Just to note, neocreationism is my pet word for Intelligent Design, hope I offended someone.)

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Dave Thomas published on September 23, 2005 11:55 AM.

Zimmer on whales was the previous entry in this blog.

Uncommon Dissent: The Game 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 4.361

Site Meter