The next time ID people cry ‘censorship’

| 266 Comments

The next time ID movement makes a stink about “censorship” – their word for informed criticism – read this. Almost forty years after the Supreme Court struck down the bans on teaching evolution in public schools, this kind of thing is still shockingly common.

266 Comments

I know Jason personally, and I am an active researcher and University teacher here in Arkansas, actively working with other faculty to help ameliorate the problem. I am delighted to see that he did such a wonderful job with that article.

My take on the situation here (and I am sure that it is true elsewhere) is that we have effectively lost the battle over science teaching in the public schools. Our impression is that science education is horrible in many parts of the state, in spite of heroic efforts on the part of individual teachers and programs that aim to ameliorate the problem. Court decisions are great, and they provide some backing and comfort to our efforts, but the reality is that evolution is not being taught in a large number of high schools. The simplest explanation is that parents and administrators are hostile to the subject. So not only is it not taught, but students are indoctrinated against evolution in the home and church. Even tonight I was noting to my wife over diner that in spite of the whining of the likes of Ken Hamm and the good honest folks at the DI, in fact virtually nothing supporting evolution is shown on TV, in opposition to the regular programming promoting creationism and critiquing evolution (10% of our cable channels are devoted to religious broadcasting).

We see students who know virtually nothing about biology because their teachers have avoided it for fear of their jobs. We had one student who said that her entire high school biology experience consisted of designing web pages. She has subsequently gone on to graduate school, and is doing well, but only by virtue of diligence and hard work on her part to catch up and fill in the gaps in her education.

But the effect is not just on evolution. It is on all science. Many students are being taught that science is an ideological atheistic exercise, and they are overtly hostile to all science that they perceive as challenging their personal faith and even political ideology (I am dealing with such a student who is vocal about it in one of my classes this semester). In fact, we have had numerous independent reports that our classes are listed on the “do not take list” at the large Baptist church just off campus. And we wonder why science education in this country is declining.

I love the Panda’s Thumb, and regularly recommend the Talk Origins archive to students and interested parties. But the DI, AiG, and the IRC people know that the battle is really in the home and churches, and in the public arena. These guys aren’t dumb, and at least in places like Arkansas, they are skillfully winning a battle of rhetoric and propaganda. My only hope is that eventually, the truth will win out simple because you can’t live a lie forever.

My father was a paleontologist in his early college years, but eventually became a biology teacher in TX. (when he found out I was on the way, he had to get a more secure job). Each year when he got to the evolution portion of the lesson plans, he would encounter students wanting to leave the class and angry parents threatening to sue his school. It got so bad for him that he quit teaching biology. Luckily his school district stood behind him and his lesson plans, but he still had to have the countless parent/teacher conferences where he literally had parents yelling in his face about “evilution”. My highschool teacher in TX spent five minutes on Darwin and it was immediately after he discussed Pasteur disproving spontaneous formation of life from rotting meat. This was all back during the 80’s and 90’s, so I can’t speak for TX these days.

If I was Intelligently Designed, why have I been laid up for two days with a bad back? All I did was get out of a chair…

I just find this so sad. What is happening to America? What will this country look like in 20 years? In 50? I honestly think this cancer of religious fundamentalism may have spread too far and will sink us all in the end.

I just find this so sad. What is happening to America? What will this country look like in 20 years? In 50? I honestly think this cancer of religious fundamentalism may have spread too far and will sink us all in the end.

You might have a point. Just speaking from my perception as a person outside of America, but it would appear as if the science in other countries (Europe, Far East) are becoming more dominant. As a child, my perception was that the USA was the leaders in science and technology. I doubt if this is still the case. NASA of course does a good job, as related to other space agencies (even with recent disasters).

The other thing is that it appears as if most xtian fundie type activities in other countries have their roots in the USA.

South Africa in the old apartheid era used to be heavy fundie and conservative (most xtian country in the world). Since the liberal government came to power in 1994 the religious right support base has been on a steady decline. The new generation of kids are still considered Christian, but are far more liberal than what my generation used to be. Funny thing, we don’t have separation of church and state, and Christianity are still taught in schools.

Could it be (and I am just wondering out loud) that since religion was “banned” from American schools it created a type of “resistance” that will never go away. Let’s face it. Fundies gets really angry when they are not allowed to push their doctrines. As for what the solution is, I really don’t know

My only hope is that eventually, the truth will win out simple because you can’t live a lie forever.

and how much damage are we willing to suffer while we wait the fires of righteousness to blaze themselves out?

As these creationists throw their states and populace ever father backwards, the economic impact will begin to be overwhelming.

one wonder just how long the feds will put up with it before they realize just how much damage is being done to the US economy in the long term.

If you think the civil war was all about freeing the slaves, think again. It was as at least as much about the economics involved.

I think we have kind of reached the pinnacle of ignorance placation with GW.

It will be quite interesting to see what comes next.

It will be quite interesting to see what comes next.

The fundies will be in retreat. Under Dubya, they had the best chance they ever WILL have of reaching their goals, and they couldn’t do it. They controlled the White House, the Senate, the House, and the courts — and they STILL couldn’t pass a single portion of their social agenda.

The Democans will nominate Hillary Clinton, who is unelectable. So I think that leaves Republicrat McCain as our best hope — he has no love for the fundies.

Here’s hoping that the McCain-ites will finally be able to marginalize the fundie nuts within the Republicrat Party and reduce them to a screaming gesticulating crowd of ignored whackos.

The Democans will nominate Hillary Clinton, who is unelectable. So I think that leaves Republicrat McCain as our best hope —- he has no love for the fundies.

I find your overall view pretty optimistic. But I hope you’re wrong about this. Hillary - like Bill - is too much of a “triangulator” for my taste, and I suspect that McCain (with his endorsement of ID and nauseating bear-hugs of W, and don’t forget he was way out in front of W on the neo-con Iraq agenda) is not the moderate many people think.

I really feel for these teachers and administrators having to deal with the attitudes of folks who have been taught that scientists are atheists and not to be trusted. A crying shame.

It is indeed a shame that so many people do not feel they can trust atheists.

I’m sure that there are parts of the world where people would be thrilled to see the US economy crippled. It’s easy to think that other countries will benefit if the USA falls behind because of the fundamentalist war on science, but it’s a mistake to consider economy a zero-sum game. In today’s global economy whatever happens to the USA will affect every other country, and more so the more important the trade with the USA is to them. And, as Renier pointed out, much of the fundamentalist, anti-science movement around the world draws its power (and its arguments) from groups that are based in the US. To me, that means that creationism in the US is something that should concern people everywhere. It’s not just something for the Americans to sort out for themselves, because if we who live outside the US do nothing we will find ourselves in the same situation that they are in.

Don’t forget that to a lot of fundies, athiesm is a crime worse than being an axe-murderer, ergo, athiests definitely can’t be trusted. Why science should fall into athiesm is probably just their bizarre worldview.

This is truly one of the most discouraging articles I’ve ever read on PT. I hope all of you in the States can continue fighting the good fight, but if it really gets you down, you’re always welcome up here in Canada, where, last I checked, we still had at least some evolution teaching in highschool.

My only hope is that eventually, the truth will win out simple because you can’t live a lie forever.

Sure you can. There’s plenty of evidence that people can spend their entire lives living a stupid falsehood.

BTW, has anyone noticed the link on WAD’s blog to a “review” of the Jones decision? The link is to a site called americanvision.org, which appears to be a Christian Reconstruction site!!

But the effect is not just on evolution. It is on all science.

It also translates into other technology-related fields, such as in my field of engineering. I am constantly reading about how this country is not producing enough engineers. And people wonder why there is so much outsourcing of these jobs.

Way too many children are not getting a sound elementary and secondary education in the science and mathematics fields. Then, when they get the cold, hard reality check during their freshman year of college about what science and math is really all about, many can not make the necessary adjustments and simply drop out and/or change majors.

Lenny Wrote:

So I think that leaves Republicrat McCain as our best hope —- he has no love for the fundies.

The more I learn about McCain’s views, the more I see him as nothing more than a likeable face on a staunch conservative nut. He is fiercely pro-life. I’m very afraid of another religious right administration.

In my opinion, McCain won’t be nominated. Whether there are worse things that could happen is up for grabs.

My only hope is that eventually, the truth will win out simple[y] because you can’t live a lie forever.

I’ll admit that 2000 years is not forever, but on a human timescale it comes pretty close.

I just find this so sad. What is happening to America? What will this country look like in 20 years? In 50? I honestly think this cancer of religious fundamentalism may have spread too far and will sink us all in the end.

And, as someone else pointed out, perhaps the rest of the world with us. I have been saying for a few years now that I believe future historians will regard the Bush II administration as the beginning of the end of American ascendancy.

“There once was a time when all people believed in God and the church ruled. This time was called the Dark Ages.” RICHARD LEDERER, “ANGUISHED ENGLISH”

UNBELIEVABLE. What are we coming to?

It sure makes me glad to be living on the West Coast, where the religious right is merely a vocal minority and good science teaching is still the norm.

I think the next step is obvious, given the current obsession with standardized testing and NCLB.

We need to change the standardized testing in science and especially biology to allow for ID.

The creationists point to polls showing that a minority of Americans believe in evolution and claim that it’s been taught and rejected. The truth is closer to what’s described in this article: evolution, even when mandated, isn’t necessarily taught.

During the appeals process, Cobb County, GA defended its anti-evolution disclaimer sticker by saying that they used to not teach evolution at all. So in that context their policy of “teaching” evolution with a disclaimer is an improvement.

I see over at the York Daily Record (http://www.ydr.com/doverbiology) that Judge Jones has had to use the Marshall Service for protection agains threats. It says something about the mentality of these fundamentalists.

Maybe fundies know themselves better than we do, and are just barely able to hold themselves together. Teach them evolution or deny the literal meaning of their bible, and they know they will become raging killers and endulge in all sorts of evil, destructive bahaviors. Maybe they know in their heart-or-hearts just how dangerous they are.

Maybe they know in their heart-or-hearts just how dangerous they are.

I’ve often said that creationists should willingly submit themselves for psychological evaluation.

Support for your theory comes from Dave Scot over at UD, who screamed at one of the PT contributers to “pack his stuff and get out of my country!”

or Slaveador drooling at the bit to put “darwinists” in front of what amounts to an inquisition, complete with thumbscrews.

yes, these folks ARE violent.

I think it should be pointed out more often, in fact.

*Yawn*

Man, PT has become fatally boring. You guys are so 2005. You should bring back Gary Hurd and Great White Wonder to liven things up. Lenny’s black-helicopter theocracy conspiracies are very long in the tooth.

Man, PT has become fatally boring

there’s that projection again, Heddle.

Yep, that’s right, David.

But if we’re so “fatally boring,” why is it that you just can’t seem to keep away? Either we’re not that boring after all, or we’re boring only to the extent that you keep showing up to repeat your tired old arguments ad nauseum…

To disentangle these causative factors–and given that you’re the one claiming to be so “fatally bored” (and even I wouldn’t wish that to be literally the case, even in your case!), let’s try an experiment: you will stay away from PT (that is, don’t post under your own name or any psuedonym on any thread, or on any discussion at After the Bar Closes) for, oh, let’s say, the rest of 2006.

Please feel free, should you succeed–which of course you will not, since you’re addicted, but never mind that–to drop by (once, please, will be enough) in early 2007 to tell us how fatally boring we were in 2006.

Since we know you can’t really keep away, however, try this instead: don’t post until you have something genuinely new to say. Not only would that mean that we won’t see you for several years–possibly decades!–but it will also help us with our alleged fatal-boredom problem (in case you’re not quite tracking here: less same-old-David automatically equals less boring–see how easy it is to help when you make a sincere effort?).

Again, if–after conscientiously restraining yourself–you sincerely find that PT has not grown more interesting in your absence, then please feel free to come back and tell us that.

But, again please, only after allowing a truly representative and fair test period to pass.

Deal, head-dull?

Seriously, there must be something we can do besides ranting. I like to say that if each pro-science person could convert one anti-science person, then this problem would go away. I don’t think that calling the fundies stupid is going to change their ways. What is a more constructive approach?

I don’t think that calling the fundies stupid is going to change their ways. What is a more constructive approach?

no, but it’s somehow satisfying nonetheless ;)

as to more constructive…

-write letters to your local newspaper

-spend some time educating folks at your local school board meetings, and get to know who represents you on the school board.

-write your local, state, and national representatives to let them know that placating the religious right is leading to economic disaster, so STOP IT!

-if you know any creationists, spend a day walking them thru the talkorigins archive; explain to them what they are seeing, what the evidence means.

-introduce a creationist to an actual working biologist, so they can see how science actually works.

yes, any of these things are more productive than commenting here on PT.

however, I personally rarely come here to be productive.

‘Rev Dr’ Lenny Flank wrote:

“The fundies will be in retreat. Under Dubya, they had the best chance they ever WILL have of reaching their goals, and they couldn’t do it. They controlled the White House, the Senate, the House, and the courts —- and they STILL couldn’t pass a single portion of their social agenda.”

The latter part is true, but the former is, IMO, not true. The wingnuts have succeeded in making many parts of their agenda a part of the national culture, and their destruction of the public education system in many parts of the country will result in many future voters not having a clue about what is going on. This will only further the fundie agenda in the future.

Until the media and mainstream Christian churches start to systematically point out the real agenda of the fundies, and decry their principles and actions as non-Christian, there will always be a chance that the fundies will win.

A lot more goes on here besides ranting, including staying abreast of the news on this gust-front of the culture wars, discussion of the latest evolutionary research, and meticulous, detailed, and persuasive debunking of the recycled creationist arguments.

Whether any of that will dislodge the entrenched anti-rationalists from their positions is debatable. But, if we believe that there are significant numbers of non-entrenched, “independent,” genuinely-confused or perplexed on-lurkers, who aren’t quite sure about this whole evolution thing, or who have been bamboozled into suspecting there is an actual scientific controversy that is being “suppressed,” and so forth, then following the discussions here–

–and, in particular, watching our favorite collection of trolls do their utmost to demonstrate precisely how vacuous, moronic, boring, repetitive, and resistant to evidence the ID/creationist positions really are! Not to mention humor-impaired!!

–does arguably serve a useful purpose that goes well beyond mere “ranting.”

And, of course, PT (and its allied organizations, like the NCSE and TalkOrigins) has helped mobilize the, um, reality-based portion of the populace on any number of occasions involving media, PR, school district, legislative, or judicial challenges to the Theory- With-The-Mostest-Evidence.

Sure, we’re not perfect and we could always do better (feel entirely free to suggest something specific), but we’re about a whole lot more than merely reflecting back the ranting of the IDiots.

(Not that we don’t indulge in a certain amount of that, as well, in our own inimitable, genteel, and much-more-humorous manner.)

*shudder* *twitch*

From my experiences in public school, Jefferson freed all his slaves (and never had a mistress), our Founding Fathers were staunch Christians, the Puritans who first settled in the US were uptight prudes who somehow got along famously with the ‘noble savage’ Native Americans, the US joined WW2 to get rid of evil Nazis, and the government always looks out for the people.

In private school, I learned Jefferson freed all his slaves except his mistress, our Founding Fathers were staunch Deists and scientists, the Puritans who first settled in the US were intellectuals and believed in restraint and moderation of behavior (the prudes came in the second wave of settlement) appealed to the then-200-year-old democratic tribal government, the US around WW2 were more Nazi-friendly than not, and the government limits both freedom of the press, the original intent of fair-use and copyright stipulations, and legal contracts between consenting individuals.

Whitewashing and language takeover happens everywhere in public schools, even in “liberal” California.

I can relate to this censorship. While I haven’t been forced to not teach evolution, this past year it was mandated that ID be taught in mandatory Saturday classes at my school. (My school is a private school, although ostensibly nonreligious, so they can do this.) Furthermore, if they didn’t pass these 4 4-hour sessions, they were required to return a 2nd time to pass it. The final mark on their transcript was “Science Paradaigms”. I’ve got a problem with the use of the first word, as well as the plural there.

I have found the students repeatedly coming into class confused as to what to believe, as the director of the school is teaching them ID, and their science teacher (me) is not. After I spent a long time teaching them what a theory and a hypothesis is, they are coming back in to my classroom repeating the classic common definition that they learned in the Saturday school. They are saying nothing can be certain in science because it is only opinions, and they can’t trust it. My only recourse has been to declare my intent not to return next year, for I find the environment here does not allow for science instruction.

I have found the students repeatedly coming into class confused as to what to believe, as the director of the school is teaching them ID, and their science teacher (me) is not. After I spent a long time teaching them what a theory and a hypothesis is, they are coming back in to my classroom repeating the classic common definition that they learned in the Saturday school. They are saying nothing can be certain in science because it is only opinions, and they can’t trust it. My only recourse has been to declare my intent not to return next year, for I find the environment here does not allow for science instruction.

What happened at your school is exactly why we are fighting all the IDiots trying to push this stuff into public education science standards. It is hard for kids to learn what science is if they are given mixed messages about what it is. Most people make decisions based on their emotions and this is especially true of teenagers. ID appeals to their feelings about God where as science is a logical process used to find predictive explanations. It’s no wonder that kids are getting really confused. Sorry to hear about your situation, it really is a shame.

Creationists’ pressure-group tactics remind me of the supporters of Hanns Hoerbiger’s Welteislehre (WEL or Cosmic Ice Theory).

This was a crackpot theory to the effect that much of the Solar System, including the Moon, is covered by ice, and that the Earth has had several previous moons, which have all spiraled in. The most recent moon’s final days are remembered in end-of-the-world myths like Ragnarok and the Book of Revelation, while the capture of the Earth’s current moon had sunk Atlantis.

Hoerbiger was convinced that his theories were rejected only because he was not a recognized astrophysicist. Counterevidence he dismissed as having been “faked” by “reactionary” astronomers, and this mining engineer would declare about some numbers not working out that “calculation can only lead you astray.”

After World War I, the WEL’s advocates used pressure-group tactics to get their theory accepted; they would heckle astronomers’ meetings with “Out with astronomical orthodoxy! Give us Hoerbiger!” Who once wrote to a critic that “either you believe in me and learn, or you will be treated as the enemy.” And as the Nazis became prominent, the Hoerbigerites attached themselves to Nazism, saying that Hoerbiger was like Hitler, an Austrian “amateur” who got those pesky Jews out of the way.

Some leading Nazis became supporters of the WEL, and Nazi officialdom eventually had to state that one could be a good Nazi without believing in that theory.

Some WEL supporters stayed in business after World War II, though they have no Internet presence known to me as far as I’ve been able to discover.

I have found the students repeatedly coming into class confused as to what to believe, as the director of the school is teaching them ID, and their science teacher (me) is not. After I spent a long time teaching them what a theory and a hypothesis is, they are coming back in to my classroom repeating the classic common definition that they learned in the Saturday school. They are saying nothing can be certain in science because it is only opinions, and they can’t trust it. My only recourse has been to declare my intent not to return next year, for I find the environment here does not allow for science instruction.

this is EXACTLY why we fight this battle, and EXACTLY why so many of us are adamant against letting folks teach this crap in schools.

Please take an exact copy of your letter, and mail it to:

any newspaper you can find

your local, state, and federal representatives

your local and state public school board representatives (even though your’s was a private school issue)

this is the precise message these folks need to hear;

the freaking damage this drivel causes when taught to young people that don’t already have a firm grasp of what science is yet.

believe me when i say that your message isn’t the first time we have heard of the confusion teaching creationsim in schools causes.

that said, it would be helpful if you would post the actual lesson plan you were forced to use to teach ID.

how does one even go about “teaching” it??

there is no theory, not hypotheses, no predictions and no data…

what’s left, as far as i can tell, is just dogma.

The twentytwo lawsuits which I have brought against the Federal Government have given me an expertise in the American legal system surely surpassing that of any lawyer, and I can confidently tell you without reading it that Judge Jones’ ruling is completely illegitimate and will be shortly overturned. If you do a global search, you will see that Judge Jones’ ruling contained the word ‘the’ over 1,200 times – the same number as found in Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto, a book about communism, and the same number as found in the closing arguments of murderer OJ Simpson’s fourteen lawyers, who, by the way, probably demanded inexcusably high hourly fees throughout the trial, a fact which Judge Jones failed to address even once in his supposedly exhaustive indictment of Intelligent Design. (So much for Judge Jones being a responsible pulic servant.) And all this was done on the taxpayers’ dime. The good people of Pennsylvania surely deserve better.

I am also disturbed by the shameful cowardice of the Ohio Board of Education. I heard something to the effect that the government hired well over a hundred attorneys, all of them probably charging inexcusably large hourly fees. Why was this necessary? The forces of the Darwinists should certainly have needed no more than one lawyer, preferably working voir dire, which I’m pretty sure is a real legal term that real (overpaid) lawyers use, meaning ‘to work for free’. Why were the Darwinists lawyers not willing to work voir dire in Ohio? Didn’t they think their cause was important enough? This is something none of the evolutionists will talk about, no matter how much they may crow about their so-called victory in Pennsylvania. I find this hypocrisy appalling.

Ever since their little ‘victory’ against ID in Dover, Darwinists have been trying to give the false impression that all criticisms of Darwinism are ID. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many criticisms of Darwinism in fact are Creationist, and since Intelligent Design and Creationism have nothing in common, this proves that criticism of the standard totalitarian Darwinist orthodoxy comes from all corners of scientific endeavor.

Another piece of evidence why the Dover ruling was completely illegitimate was the number of lawyers involved. I think I read somewhere that the evolutionists hired upwards of 28 attorneys, while the school district probably hired far fewer, let’s say 8 just for the sake of argument. However, a cold hard revisionist analysis of the facts will surely show that 28 attorneys were certainly not enough to defeat the 8 attorneys dedicated to the promulgation of free speech. How would the Darwinist attorneys be able to recognize the attorneys for the school district? How would they know where to find them, in order to round them up? How would they know where they lived? The logistics clearly could not be made to work, as any unbiased observer would have to agree. So therefore it is inescapable that in fact the defeat of intelligent design was in fact far smaller than Darwinists like to claim, or indeed, I daresay it is entirely possible that the Dover trial in fact did not take place at all.

yup, that about sums up my name is legion’s arguments alrighty.

lol.

Comment #92680 posted by Jedidiah Palosaari on April 1, 2006 04:27 PM

I have found the students repeatedly coming into class confused as to what to believe, as the director of the school is teaching them ID, and their science teacher (me) is not.…… My only recourse has been to declare my intent not to return next year, for I find the environment here does not allow for science instruction.

If you find this “problem“ to be intolerable, you probably will not be able to escape this problem by switching to another school, because students all over are starting to question evolution theory. The Los Angeles Times recently had an article titled, “Testing Darwin‘s Teachers – Sometimes disruptive but often sophisticated questioning of evolution by students has educators increasingly on the defensive.“ This is a three-page article on the Internet, so don‘t miss pages 2-3. See http://www.latimes.com/news/printed[…]story?page=1

If you have this problem only with evolution theory, you might be able to get around the problem. You could point out to the students that even if all or part of evolution theory is untrue, it is still something that they should know just for their own information and because evolution theory is useful in some scientific fields. You could use AC circuit analysis as an analogy. You could point out to the students that electrical engineers use complex-plane vectors (impedance vectors and rotating phasors) in the analysis of AC circuits, even though the engineers know that these vectors bear no direct physical relationship to the AC circuits.

there you go again larry, proving to us that you are the master of making yourself look stupid.

congrats on finally making something of yourself.

students all over are starting to question evolution theory.

Waterloo !!!! Waterloo !!!!! Waterloo !!!!!!

(snicker) (giggle)

Larry FarFromKnowingHisName

I am a degreed mechanical engineer and the only scientific theories that I ever studied were atomic theory and some theories of stress failure.

Oh, cut the crap, Larry. Your daddy had to hook you up to AOL. You couldn’t mechanically engineer your way out of a wet paper bag. But at least you’re admitting that you’ve never studied evolutionary biology…not that there has ever been much mystery about that, since you’ve endlessly advertised your own cluelessness about ToE, the law, the court system, the legislative system, and on and on…! Why not return to a subject where your general cluelessness might actually work to your advantage: you know, something like Holocaust “revisionism” or Confederate apologetics.

Comment #92680 posted by Jedidiah Palosaari on April 1, 2006 04:27 PM

I have found the students repeatedly coming into class confused as to what to believe, as the director of the school is teaching them ID, and their science teacher (me) is not.…… My only recourse has been to declare my intent not to return next year, for I find the environment here does not allow for science instruction.

If you find this “problem“ to be intolerable, you probably will not be able to escape this problem by switching to another school, because students all over are starting to question evolution theory. The Los Angeles Times recently had an article titled, “Testing Darwin‘s Teachers – Sometimes disruptive but often sophisticated questioning of evolution by students has educators increasingly on the defensive.“ This is a three-page article on the Internet, so don‘t miss pages 2-3. See http://www.latimes.com/news/printed[…]story?page=1

If you have this problem only with evolution theory, you might be able to get around the problem. You could point out to the students that even if all or part of evolution theory is untrue, it is still something that they should know just for their own information and because evolution theory is useful in some scientific fields. You could use AC circuit analysis as an analogy. You could point out to the students that electrical engineers use complex-plane vectors (impedance vectors and rotating phasors) in the analysis of AC circuits, even though the engineers know that these vectors bear no direct physical relationship to the AC circuits.

Hey, ‘Jubal’, you’re repeating yourself. You posted that same message twice.

Comment #92814 posted by Arden Chatfield on April 1, 2006 08:42 PM Hey, ‘Jubal’, you’re repeating yourself. You posted that same message twice.

That was extra insurance because you asked the staff to delete my posts.

April Fools. No, it was just an accident – I don‘t know how it happened. Sorry about that.

Seriously, though, stop asking people to delete my posts. That is very rude. You would not like it if someone did it to you.

Seriously, though, stop asking people to delete my posts. That is very rude. You would not like it if someone did it to you.

Larry, they are not deleting your messages because we tell them to, they are deleting them because you have been banned from here, remember???

And threatening to post under my name is not going to get you sympathy points, genius.

larry desperately pleaded (like a true troll does):

Seriously, though, stop asking people to delete my posts. That is very rude. You would not like it if someone did it to you.

feel free super larry.

let’s see whose posts get deleted first.

you could always STOP being a troll, and thereby not risk your tenuous tenure here on PT.

really, the only reason you aren’t continually shuffled off to the BW is simply because the contributors are too lazy to do so.

every time they start monitoring threads, lo and behold, your posts go *poof*, appropriate for their content.

Comment #92832 posted by Arden Chatfield on April 1, 2006 09:17 PM

Seriously, though, stop asking people to delete my posts. That is very rude. You would not like it if someone did it to you.

Larry, they are not deleting your messages because we tell them to, they are deleting them because you have been banned from here, remember???

You‘re lying. Don‘t bullshit me. When a PT staffer deleted my posts on another thread, you invited him to come here and delete my posts on this thread (which ironically is a thread that condemns censorship).

And threatening to post under my name is not going to get you sympathy points, genius.

I am not seeking sympathy. I am just seeking relief from all this damn banning and deleting.

PT should either stop persecuting anti-Darwinist commenters or turn in its Scientific American magazine web award. That is all there is to it.

Posted by J Simes on April 2, 2006 04:00 AM (e) … I am not seeking sympathy. I am just seeking relief from all this damn banning and deleting.

PT should either stop persecuting anti-Darwinist commenters or turn in its Scientific American magazine web award. That is all there is to it.

I am curious. Do you think your posts get moved/deleted because you are making too good an argument and the only way to stop you winning is to censor you?

I am just seeking relief from all this damn banning and deleting.

You brought it upon yourself by knowingly and purposely violating Rule 6 (do not post under multiple names), after you had been warned of the consequences of violating Rule 6. In fact, the administrators let you go at least two whole months while violating Rule 6, even as the denizens (myself including) requested and even begged you to return to posting as Larry to avoid the violation. It wasn’t until you used someone else’s username (I believe it was sir_toejam you posted as, but I could be misremembering) that the owner of the site publicly announced the enforcement of your ban.

You were banned not for the contents of your posts, but because of your conduct. Had you continued to post as Larry, you would not be under a ban. And every time anyone responds to you, we run the risk of being banned, which is why we ask that the ban be universally enforced, so that the lies and distortions you post aren’t left undisputed to potentially influence a lurker.

Oh, and for old time’s sake:

You could use AC circuit analysis as an analogy. You could point out to the students that electrical engineers use complex-plane vectors (impedance vectors and rotating phasors) in the analysis of AC circuits, even though the engineers know that these vectors bear no direct physical relationship to the AC circuits.

I am one of those electrical engineers who uses complex-plane vectors on a daily basis in designing AC circuits (specifically, for large manufacturing plants and municipal power distribution), and the vectors do indeed bear a direct physical relationship to the AC circuit response. Rotating machinery theory (this is a senior or graduate level course) even explains why the phasors are directly related to the AC response. Let me guess - you’re basing your knowledge on a class you took 30 years ago entitled something like “Basic Circuit Theory for Non-Majors”. I’ve written a paper on this which was cited by at least three PhD dissertations, two major utility companies, and became required reading in a college course for at least 4 years. (No, it was not peer-reviewed, but the professor published it on the course website).

Don’t bullshit me. When a PT staffer deleted my posts on another thread, you invited him to come here and delete my posts on this thread (which ironically is a thread that condemns censorship).

You’re not very bright, ‘Jubal’, so I’ll explain this with short words. What you wrote there does not contradict what I said. Here’s the deal. When it got to the point when everyone here started yelling at you as soon as you popped up, you started coming back under all these ludicrous pseudonyms. (A violation of PT rules.) You once bragged that if we banned you, you would just start coming back under different names and IP addresses, which you have done. That’s an even bigger violation of the rules. You get deleted from time to time BECAUSE OF THAT. People here want you out because you’re an irritating moron who has no idea what he’s talking about and who derails threads. Then yesterday you threaten to start posting under my name. Remarkably, you seem not to understand this either, so let me tell you: that is a BIG violation. The only reason your posts are not more consistently deleted is because the people running this board are sadly too busy to maintain their threads properly.

If you think you’re being censored here because of your ideas, that’s a sign of your delusions of grandeur. We’re deleting you because you’re an irritating dimwit who shits all over PT’s rules.

What’s ironic is I think you actually KNOW all this, and view this all as a game.

My suggestion is if you think you’re ‘unloved’ here, would simply be to go away. There’s nothing stopping you. But I know you won’t do that, since you appear not to have a life beyond posting trollish nonsense at websites where you’re not wanted.

In the meantime, we will try to do our best to get your posts deleted when they appear, since, after all you’ve been banned. Remember?

PT should either stop persecuting anti-Darwinist commenters or turn in its Scientific American magazine web award. That is all there is to it.

(sniffle) (sob) Boo hoo hoo.

Sucks to be you, doesn’t it.

Are Holocaust-deniers and Confederate apologists “persecuted” too, Larry?

Maybe you ARE really an IDer, Larry. After all, they are all whiny crybabies, too.

Larry Blathers again

You could use AC circuit analysis as an analogy. You could point out to the students that electrical engineers use complex-plane vectors (impedance vectors and rotating phasors) in the analysis of AC circuits, even though the engineers know that these vectors bear no direct physical relationship to the AC circuits.

As Kevin pointed out the mathematical model described with the aid of “imaginary numbers” (complex numbers) that Larry has such difficulty with indicates the disjunct in his thought patterns and the real world.

I would suggest that this is the problem. For someone who only views the world in an objectivist manner (the idea that all acceptable knowledge must take the form of exact, impersonal, context-neutral ‘facts’) and for whom a relative interpretation(no knowledge claims of the objectivist kind can be found, there is no true knowledge and rival knowledge claims are incommensurable) fall into the trap of a non dualistic cognitive dissonance.

When supernatural/metaphysical ideas are taken literally as fact then “reality” for them actually becomes a form of “magical realism” or a form of (mild?)schizophrenia, where thoughts are not moderated by normal adult behavior.

The problem Larry has is with the world “imaginary”, he conflates the world imaginary; as used in normal conversation to mean ‘not existing’ except in ones mind, with the the mathematical use of the 2 words “imaginary numbers” which are by an accident of history used to counterpoise a type of number that is not a “real number” (NB. people who understand this just hold on.… all will become clear) .

Because Larry’s (Fundy) brain is so locked by his literalism he simply thinks “imaginary numbers” are *actually imaginary* ,that is to say not real, they do not exist.

Even the word “exists” for a Fundy is fraught with danger, the very word conjures up the thought that “god exists” (in exactly the same manner that Santa Claus exists for a child but much more concrete for an un-disabused adult) therefore existence itself DOES NOT EXIST in the normal use of the term. (BTW Larry will not understand that sentence…think about it)

The literal Fundy brain is extremely rational despite the incongruence of that statement, for them the mythology and imagined history of the various holy books are FACT promoting a form of ‘rapture’ … a sort of eternal adolescence.

They have been freed from the normal child to adult transition of constructing a metaphysical dualism (for western religions at least) that must be adopted for any of reality and existence to make sense. To understand how that dualism is constructed look at Dr Ken Miller’s comments on how he sees ‘creation’. His world view allows him to hold the idea that if there is a G_d that exists then it is not an actual biblical literal existence in a Fundy sense which they piously point out because some Xtians do not believe in a biblical literal existence gives them a (rational in their mind) excuse to disparage those beliefs.

The crazy thing about the Fundy mindset is that for them the world appears to be crazy because the rest of the world does not agree with what they perceive as FACT’s which to them are as real as their own noses.

Comment #93158 posted by W. Kevin Vicklund on April 2, 2006 11:18 AM

I am one of those electrical engineers who uses complex-plane vectors on a daily basis in designing AC circuits (specifically, for large manufacturing plants and municipal power distribution), and the vectors do indeed bear a direct physical relationship to the AC circuit response. Rotating machinery theory (this is a senior or graduate level course) even explains why the phasors are directly related to the AC response.

The use of complex-number mathematics in AC circuit analysis is basic – not senior or graduate level – EE material. I completely understand such usage, so our differences on this subject are just a matter of opinion. The voltages and currents in the circuit are just the real components of the rotating phasor vectors. The impedance vector‘s physical relationship to the circuit is even more remote – the reactance component of the impedance vector ( i.e., the impedance vector‘s “imaginary-number“ component in the complex-number plane ) is a computed number based on the capacitances, inductances, and the AC frequency. It is not at all obvious that complex-number math is useful in the analysis of AC circuits. I used this example of complex-number AC circuit analysis just to illustrate the fact that things that may be perceived as having little or no apparent connection to reality – another example is evolution theory – can still be useful in science and technology.

Because Larry’s (Fundy) brain

I still don’t think Larry is a fundie, just a crank.

No fundie could have gone one tenth as long as Larry has without dragging his religious opinions into the discussion. They are, after all, the only thing that matters to them.

The voltages and currents in the circuit are just the real components of the rotating phasor vectors.

That is a false statement. The voltages and currents in the circuits are the magnitudes and phase angles of the rotating phasor vectors, as is the complex power. It is the “real” power (power available to do work) that is the real component of the resultant phasors, and the reactive power is the imaginary component of the resultant phasors. You are out of your league on this topic. Your opinion is in fact wrong, not merely different from mine.

Almost anyone who has had to work with AC circuits will immediately see the advantage of using complex math in the analysis. Almost anyone who has had to work with rotating machinery will immediately understand why phasors do in fact bear a direct physical relationship with the AC circuits being described. To some people, either or both of those never do become obvious. They may be able to do the rote work, but they will never truly understand what is going on, nor will they be able to effectively troubleshoot a problem they have not previously encountered.

When I took AP Physics in high school, I only memorized a couple basic formulas. At the beginning of every test, I would derive all the remaining formulas from those basic formulas. Because I understood the theory, rather than merely memorizing laws derived from the theory, I had by far the best grade in the class.

The lesson: rote memorization without understanding merely makes a person a technician.

Comment #93299 posted by W. Kevin Vicklund on April 2, 2006 06:02 PM

The voltages and currents in the circuit are just the real components of the rotating phasor vectors.

That is a false statement. The voltages and currents in the circuits are the magnitudes and phase angles of the rotating phasor vectors, as is the complex power. It is the “real” power (power available to do work) that is the real component of the resultant phasors, and the reactive power is the imaginary component of the resultant phasors. You are out of your league on this topic. Your opinion is in fact wrong, not merely different from mine.

No, it is not a false statement, and I am not “out of my league.“ By “voltages and currents,“ I meant the instantaneous values of the voltages and currents, and not the peak values (amplitudes) of the voltage and current waveforms, these peak values being the “magnitudes“ of the phasors. The angle between the voltage and current phasors is the “phase angle“ between the sinusoidal waveforms of the voltage and current. I was not talking about complex power but was only talking about voltages and currents. BTW, some references might say that the instantaneous voltages and currents are the imaginary components rather than the real components of the phasors, but this change just shifts both the voltage and current waveforms by the same 90 degrees. http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/AC.html has some nice diagrams showing phasors and their corresponding sinusoidal voltage and current waveforms, and the diagrams can be animated by clicking on the buttons marked “play“ just to the right of the voltage waveforms. This webpage also discusses complex impedance at the bottom.

Almost anyone who has had to work with AC circuits will immediately see the advantage of using complex math in the analysis.

On the contrary, complex-number math and AC circuits seem so unrelated that seeing the relationship was virtually a stroke of genius.

Almost anyone who has had to work with rotating machinery will immediately understand why phasors do in fact bear a direct physical relationship with the AC circuits being described.

Rotating AC generators are just a means of generating AC voltages and do not give any clues about the complex-number analysis of AC circuits.

Larry simply can not help himself. He even insists on arguing with people who are experts in their respective fields, telling them they are wrong about esoteric research they have done. Well, being that I also have a degree in EE, I must concur with W. Kevin Vicklund. I took courses called Advanced Circuit Analysis I and II, the second course dealt specifically with A.C circuits. We also had labs where we designed, built and tested A.C. circuitry and guess what; one could observe the relationships Larry says don’t exist using an oscilloscope and other circuit testing equipment. A requirement of the course was that the student recognize the relationship between theory and what he/she observed. I had the second highest grade in this class (A.C.A II) and was one of two people who got an A. While my knowledge of E.E. is certainly not up to Mr. Vicklund’s, I can recognize who is right and who is wrong. Larry is a dilettante who thinks he knows about these things but he doesn’t. Goodbye Larry, I hope to never hear from you again.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Nick Matzke published on March 23, 2006 7:46 PM.

DI book rebutting Kitzmiller decision was the previous entry in this blog.

Should Science Pursue Methodological Supernaturalism? 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