I’ve received a letter from Iowa written by Dr. Hector Avalos, which, I think, may be of interest to many readers of this blog. In his letter Dr. Avalos reports about a defeat of ID advocates in one of the school boards in Iowa. The full text of Dr. Avalos’s letter can be seen here. I hope most of the PT’s denizens will join me in expressing our gratitude to Dr. Avalos for his letter.
Iowa School Board Ousts Intelligent Design
Categories:
No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/4417.
324 Comments
Leave a comment
About this Entry
This page contains a single entry by Mark Perakh published on November 10, 2009 10:39 AM.
Turdus migratorius was the previous entry in this blog.
Comfort/Cameron Darwin giveaway – all hat and no cattle? is the next entry in this blog.
Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.
Categories
- Assault on Science (408)
- Bathroom Wall (13)
- Book Reviews (55)
- Conferences (21)
- Darwin's Finches (1)
- Designoids (8)
- Education and Legal (67)
- Eugenics (1)
- Evolution (480)
- Expelled (69)
- Flyers/Pamphlets (3)
- Humor (136)
- ID/Creationism (58)
- Icons (1)
- Journal Club (28)
- Legal Issues (121)
- Manufactroversy (10)
- Medicine and Evolution (19)
- Metatalk (85)
- MustRead (5)
- News Roundup (24)
- Prebiotic Chemistry (4)
- Question of the Day (6)
- Question of the Moment
- Quote of the Day (14)
- Religion and Politics (10)
- Research News (52)
- Resources for Biologists (16)
- Shoptalk (27)
- Slightly Off Topic (46)
- Steve Steve (68)
- Sticky (2)
- Their Own Words (19)
- Theological Issues with Intelligent Design (9)
- War on Science (34)
- What motivates creationism (20)
Bravo!
What Gary said.
Bravo, though I do wish he wouldn’t keep using the phrase “religious liberty” without scare quotes. The pushers of these things like to frame them as “religious liberty” (or “free speech” or some other noble-sounding title) when it’s really about demanding preferential treatment for their views. We should call bullshit on that, every single time.
OTOH, it’s nice to see them admitting that ID is all about religion.
Yes, as if it hasn’t been clear all along.… If it walks like religion and talks like religion…
Texas and Louisiana have shown the correct pathways of upgrading and reforming science education.
Those pathways are the specific pathways that non-Darwinists will have to take if they want to be able to make changes in the spoon-fed-evolution status quo. Otherwise they risk failure at this time.
FL keeps demonstrating that it is all about taunting and that taunting is the Christian thing to do.
And word-gaming.
And you still haven’t bothered to explain why Texas and Louisiana also have among the most abominable education systems in the entire country.
I would think that, if the students within Texas and Louisiana’s science education programs routinely score F’s and the occasional D on exams, I would think that you’re actually lying about them being on “the right path.”
You forgot lying: FL reinforces the stereotype of Christians being arrogant liars whose words can never be trusted.
Hmm. In the comments section of the Daily Reporter story, there’s a commenter named “Culture Warrior”. Chance, or design?
Oh, and don’t waste keystrokes on FL. Loser.
How would you even know that?
Oh, and WOO-HOO SPENCER, IOWA and WHOO-HOO DR. AVALOS!
He doesn’t: he’s a near-mindless, cheerleading parrot for his anti-science, fundamentalist cohorts.
To FL, bad education isn’t a bug, it’s a feature. He WANTS each generation to be stupider than the last. Promoting ignorance is the only way his sick death cult can survive.
… or not.
Louisiana passed a law stating other materials could be used. That’s it. It says nothing about ID or creationism. And so far, no one we know of has used it to teach ID or creationist “weaknesses of evolution.”
Texas made some changes to grade-level standards. Again its not clear how this will be implemented in the classroom and again this does not make formerly unconstitutional implementations constitutonal.
I see these like the Santorum Amendment. They bear watching, but right now you seem to be crowing over a symbolic victory that may turn out to be hollow. Or pyrrhic, if these state by state changes results in more state courts ruling the same way Dover did.
Poor William Provine. He’d be saddened by this news.
And line the pockets of parasites like FL
That’s good news, so desperately needed. btw, according to an article in the Guardian, England will be teaching evolution in the primary schools.
Phantomreader42 wrote: “He WANTS each generation to be stupider than the last.”
Get a grip and step away from your hyperbole.
My understanding is, evolution across much of the country (and especially in places like Louisiana) is simply sidestepped in actual class practice. Many of the teachers are as religious as Freshwater anyway, and few of them seem to have a good grasp of what evolution actually IS.
So I think what these laws mean in practice is, if some (most?) public school teachers continue to follow exactly the same practices they always have, the amount of heat some do-gooder can get the state to apply against them will be less, or much more difficult to apply.
The political principle is simple: If a law you dislike is being flouted anyway, this situation can be protected by extracting any teeth from the law.
Hector, keeping the working classes ignorant and uneducated has been an often-used strategy throughout history. There is good reason to think it forms a big part of the motivation behind the American creationist movement.
No, Phantomreader42 isn’t using hyperbole: We’re dealing with a dyed in the wool creationist who honestly thinks that evolutionists literally worship the phenomenon of biological evolution as though it were a god, that Charles Darwin is a bible, and that science classrooms are actually a kind of church.
One item important to note here is that it is the local newspaper which originally exposed this attempt to the general public. With many newspapers now struggling, we need to be aware of the necessity of maintaining an informed populace. It may be the internet that gets the information in the newspapers to a larger audience, but what if there are no local newspapers to start this chain of reporting?
Stanton, if the guy is a dyed in the wool creationist, and naturally considers himself smarter than evolutionists, and wants students to think like him, then he wants the next generation to be SMARTER than the previous one. His being wrong is irrelevant! Kapish?
I was listing to an old ApostAZ podcast this afternoon as they were having a discussion with their theist friends about religion. The hosts stated a belief that better education would be the answer, to which the theist replied that better education would make things worse, because education and technology brought us the ‘bomb’.… Yes, and it brought the cell phone, the satellites, your favorite beer, better health care, advances in television, advances in transportation, and on and on and on.….
Yes. I wrote a letter to the local paper supporting evolution (after two or three creationists got space) and in response got menaced over the phone by a hard-breathing moron who informed me that science was responsible for the Holocaust and the bomb and all other ills of the modern age, and I’d better turn to God quick smart.
Pointing out facts to rolling-eyed crazies is never any use. Facts are external; their reality is entirely within themselves. (If I were not in awe of Chip, I’d put that thought on the po-mo thread.)
No. He knows he is not smarter than the scientists. He belongs to the class of creationists like Dembski and Wells who prey on the credulous creationist base. So he does want the next generation to be dumber so that they could not see through the creationist lies.
Stanton, the man believes he is more CORRECT than the scientists, and thus, in a sense, smarter. According to your logic, there is no such thing as a creationist leader who really believes that creationism (or i.d.) is true; they all know that its lies. C’mon. This accusation of yours and phantomreader’s about this misguided man’s desires is ridiculous and has no place.
One can never rule out that they take YEC or OEC “on faith in spite of evidence,” or are afflicted with Morton’s Demon. But I suspect (though can’t prove) that Ronald Bailey hit the nail on the head for most of the leaders, especially of the ID variety. IOW they are not telling lies, but “useful fairy tales.” In the case of ID it’s “let the audience infer it’s own fairy tale.”
Anyway, all this speculation can be avoided if we say that they promote X instead of believe X.
You’re conflating phantomreader’s Ravilyn’s logic with mine: all I’ve ever said about FL is that a) he vacillates between being a wannabe preacher who thinks that evolution is an evil rival religion, and being a mindless cheerleader who parrots his anti-science cohorts, and b) he thinks he pleases Jesus Christ by spreading lies presented as catty innuendo
Robert wrote:
“Creationism is not asking for censorship but a end to it. We shall overcome. Arkansas courts also will agree.”
One last time, just to be fair. Not allowing religion to be taught as science in government funded schools is not censorship. No one cares if you think it is. Get over it already.
And no, no local court can overthrow the Consitution or the Supreme Court. Get over it.
You really need another argument man. This one is getting real old real fast.
It was old before this lying moron came here: it was the reason why he was plonked over at Pharyngula, in fact.
Stanton, in all fairness, jonesy wasn’t arguing that the Universe evolved, but that an ordered Universe argues for a Creator, that a specific point of origin argues for a prime cause, and that because life can only originate under narrowly defined conditions which the Universe provides, that the Universe was designed to produce and harbour life.
These arguments are all very disputable, and the dispute only has the effect of demonstrating that arguments for a Creator are always inconclusive.
As you point out, all such arguments do not bear on the question of whether the species evolved or were separately created. All known evidence from nature is for the former. There is no evidence from nature for the latter.
Why can’t you guys understand that if there are no differences, then there is no way to distinguish between two things. If you can’t distinguish between two things, then they are, far all intents and purposes, the same.
This arguement is basically, “It’s designed because I say it’s designed.”
Define beauty. Define order. Define purpose. Show that a universe that is not created cannot have these things.
This arguement is basically, “I say that our univeser has x, therefore it is designed.”
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one. The universe that we live in is obviously very sutied for life because we exist is very wrong. We are effectively zero percent of the entire universe. To assume the universe is the way it is for us is remarkably conceited. It would be much more proper to say the universe is the way it is to create stars, we are just an unfortunate byproduct of the life cycle of stars.
This argument is basically, “I’m special”
First, evolutionists, have nothing to say about the creation of the universe. That’s cosmologists and theoretical physicists you have a problem with.
Second, it is not a problem for them. If you would take 30 seconds to look this up on even wikipedia, then you could read all about the “fine-tuned universe” arguments and the criticisms of it. You could read all about several multiple universe models. You could read all about why your arguments are a waste of time (hint: they are not new and special). If you read and understand, then you will learn that these mainstream scientific propositions deal with all the issues you say they can’t.
In fact, they deal with it better than any creation myth does.
So again, I ask you: Please explain, what measurements we can make that will show that our universe is designed vs. not designed and what the values for each is predicted to be. Then, let’s go do an experiment and find out. That’s how something called science works.
And it is what YOU MUST DO. You’re the interloper here. You have to bring your evidence and have your hypothesis withstand 150 years of scientific scrutinity. Once it does that, we might stop thinking that you and those like you who mouth the same mindless dribble for 35 years, are idiots and start thinking you may have a point.
Go for it. Do the science. A debate will never resolve this, a court of law will never resolve this, only the science will.
Um, no. It’s not a problem at all.
The legitimate answer biology gives to the big bang is “We’re biologists, we don’t know. Go talk to the physiscists, they have all those big, fancy telescope things. Besides, what does any of this have to do with evolution? There wouldn’t even be carbon atoms for, like, 10 billion years.”
You might want to consider elevating the level of discourse beyond Sunday school, Jonesy.
Bobby, if the US was going to censor religious beliefs, you wouldn’t be here dumping your bullshit on the internet. You can stand on any street corner and spout your bullshit to the wind. The only think you can’t do is teach it as fact in a science class. If you want to stand across the street from the school and preach, go for it.
Why indeed? Science is currently restrained to describe what happens, not what should happen. Let’s make scientists in charge of morality as well as actuality!
This way, scientists will not only say that climate change is happening and will continue to happen, but scientists will be in command of every aspect of carbon dioxide production, and hence every aspect of human life. Scientists will be the dictators of the world!
Science is currently restrained to describe what happens, not what should happen. Once that restraint is loosened, scientists will tell you what to believe, how to worship, who to marry, what to eat, and when to pee.
Jonesy thinks this is desirable!
Good. Then we agree that the state isn’t prohibited from teaching evolution on the grounds that it offends your particular theology. That’s what was established in Epperson v. Arkansas. That dispenses with your first alternative: to forbid teaching both evolution and Genesis. Now let’s address your other alternative: teaching both. Your “either/or” approach (as embodied in the Louisiana “Creationism Act”) was addressed in Edwards v. Aguillard. The “Creationism Act” was invalidated because:
You’ve argued that religious beliefs are secular because they may turn out to be true. Setting aside the mountain of secular evidence that Genesis is not literally true despite the various ad hoc hypotheses and arguments from ignorance invoked to prop it up, this is mere creationist sophistry. You’re not going to find many rational people who honestly hold that Genesis isn’t really a religious belief or that teaching it has a secular purpose. The courts certainly haven’t.
it is not irrelevant if “science’ is saying the bible is wrong. That means the state is teaching the bible is untrue on its doctrines of origins. The state bans the bible not because it officially says its untrue but because it says it must not allow it in schools because of a separation concept. Iet since the state is saying its teaching the truth on origins then it is in fact saying the bible is untrue, by teaching evolution etc, and further repeats this by banning genesis with the clear intent that its not true otherwise it would be a absurd situation where the state bans a option for truth in a area it says is about truth.
The state is teaching CON about Christian doctrines for many. A direct attack against God/genesis. A official state pinion that some christian doctrines are false. Simple idea here.
If one can not teach a commonly held opinion on origins as a option then either the state has its hands tied or its saying one option is false. If the state is saying the bible is false then its breaking the law. its interfering. I can’t see the flaw in my reasoning here.
I stand by and insist I’m right. remember we are talking about real life here. Real Americans who believe Genesis is the truth of these origins. its a coicedence about genesis being tied to religious ideas. its of no matter that it is from Gods inspiration. All that matters is what the truth is and what people think is the truth.
All that is agreed is that the state not say any faith or belief including creationism be said to be true. Likewise the state is not to say its not true. A separation of state and church is the ancient American idea. it worked fine until on a line of reasoning the state started teaching the bible is false on some doctrines and further said this by banning rebuttal. All this claimed as from the pens of the founders in the 1700’s.
It comes down to what is true about origins. If one side is banned then either the state is saying that side is not got the truth worthy of students or their hands are tied . So a study in origins is not a study for the truth. An absurdity.
your side is using words to censor one side in a great contention. You just can’t say because something is religious it nullifys its claims to being a legitimate opinion. If so then opposition to murder should likewise be banned as it is also spoken against by religion. its about opinions and the origins of the opinions is not relevant to the law in reality. The present censorship is a flawed line of reasoning.
Once more. The Bible is a religious text. You assert that it is inerrant in matters of fact, but that is a religious precept with no evidential support apart from your own assertions. (It is a religious precept peculiar to your own small sect, and is not held by the majority of Christians, but that is immaterial here.) That “Biblical inerrancy” is a religious precept is undeniable, and your various attempts to deny it are idle. The State cannot teach religious texts or precepts as fact in schools, for that would be to establish a religion.
The logic of this is self-evidently obvious. Yes, yes, we all know you refuse to accept it. Nobody cares.
Lightning is caused by ionized air masses, not Thor’s hammer. Is it okay to teach that in school, or will we offend the Norse religionists?
How about volcanoes, Robert? Can we say it’s a buildup of magma under the upper crust of the earth, or will the Greek God followers insist we’re dissing Hephaestus?
Your defense of not teaching science because it disagrees with religion is just bullshit, and you know it, crazy man.
And why are you hassling the U.S. anyway? Can’t get any traction up here, huh?
FL was at least interesting. He’d make an outrageous claim, be proved wrong, and then squirm and twist trying to show how his outrageous claim hadn’t been proved wrong, or he’d modify his outrageous claim, or he’d engage in some way. It was interesting to see him squirm.
Robert Byers, in contrast, makes an outrageous claim, is proved wrong, and then merely asserts the outrageous claim unchanged a second time, and then a third time, and so forth. We understood it the first time, Robert, there’s no need to repeat. You’re boring.
Robert wrote:
“I stand by and insist I’m right. remember we are talking about real life here.”
Yea and I stand by and insist your wrong. remember, your opinion is irrelevant. it doesn’t matter in the least what you think. we are talking about reality here and the reality in this country is that you don’t get to force your religious views on others in public funded institutions. you don’t like it, that’s too bad.
you have not refuted one argument against you. you have not dealt with one real issue. you obviously are never going to change your mind. you obviously are never going to listen to any reason or valid argument. just go away already. everyone is tired or your repetitious nonsense.
and learn some grammar and spelling already.
I didn’t say that. i said if the concept of separation is active THEN the state cannot stop evolution teachings. Yet ONLY if there is separation. ONLY if likewise the state does not stop creationism. IF the state bans the bible then likewise the state must ban opposition to the bible. Separation is separation. Right now its only one way and so illegal by the intents of the constitution. Another liberal error.
That genesis is ‘religious” has no relevance to its accuracy as people see it. Its true to some and not to others. Its a idea about origins. Its none of the business of courts to say its religious. its a idea whose origins is beside the point. Likewise any Opposition to a immoral or evil act could be censored because of a religious origin in the opposition.
The state is engaged in censoring ideas on origins that are very common. None of its business. Further to say its ban is because the origins ideas are religious is to admit the state is saying the religion is false. Since clearly origin teaching is presented as the truth and whole truth to the student. The state can’t say its hands are tied. The state does have a opinion on God/Genesis.
The founders of the constitution would laugh to scorn the present court claims on this matter.
Robert,
OK I give up. You are right and everyone else is wrong. go right ahead, preach your religion in public school science classes.
Oh, before you do, you might want to take a look at the Freshwater thread. that is what will happen to you if you pull this crap. But please, be my guest.
Robert wrote:
“IF the state bans the bible then likewise the state must ban opposition to the bible. Separation is separation.”
Great. The only way that you can stop religious fanatics form preaching their whacky ideas in science class is for the government to ban science! Terrific. Exactly how long do you think that your government will last after that?
Look Rob, I hate to break it to you, but here in the United States no one has banned the Bible. You can preach anything you want in your tax free churches. You can teach compartative religion until the cows come home and crap all over you. You can teach the Bible as literature or poetry or anything else you want, -EXCEPT SCIENCE. That isn’t banning, anymore than your being sent to the bathroom wall will be banning.
Now, have you started preaching in science class yet? If not, why not? If you are so sure the law is on your side, why not invite a law suit? Why not go to court and prove your case? Why not pay for it out of your own pocket? On wait … that’s been tried hasn’t it? Now what was the outcome again?
Robert feels that somehow it’s the state’s duty to accommodate the fact that he finds reality religiously inconvenient - by not actually addressing any of it in school.
Now that’s produce an educated next generation.
When will this dishonest fool deal with the fact that he’s setting up an utterly dishonest and false dichotomy between evolution and the Bible? His “reasoning”, applied fairly, would ban the teaching of any fact which conflicts with any religious text, anywhere. Of course, he applies it unfairly, as though his interpretation of his bible is the only religious scripture which needs his alleged constitutional protection from reality, conveniently ignoring the vast majority of faiths while seeking special protection for his own. Again, Robert, when will you address this glaring inconsistency?
A prediction: You won’t.
A certainty: You won’t do so coherently.
That is true. It is factually unsupported by any actual evidence whatsoever no matter who looks upon it.
No.
It is believed to be true by those who actively ignore it’s glowing inaccuracies.
This does not, however actually make it true.
When it comes to physical facts, truth is the same for everybody. Acceptance of truth is, apparently, highly personal.
But the science in question, and the teaching of it in schools, doesn’t say that. You are ranting against an obvious straw man. Look, I’ll make it real simple:
1) “The Bible is wrong”
2) “Species are born of previous species via mutation, natural and other selection pressures”
Now boys and girls, which of those statements says the Bible is wrong? #1, right. #2 doesn’t mention the Bible at all, and therefore does not violate the seperation principle.
This isn’t rocket science.
Then it’s irrelevant. Science doesn’t say the bible is wrong; science does not address supernatural claims.
The reality is, you are saying the bible says that science is wrong. But why should anyone care in the slightest about your personal, idiosyncratic exegesis anyway? Keep your silly superstitions to yourself and I won’t bother you with mine. Why should the supreme court or Lenny Flank’s pizza boy give a crap what your religious opinions are?
So Robert, if I understand you, your position is this:
Any scientific finding that contradicts ANY religious belief CANNOT be taught in a public school unless that religious belief is also taught as the alternative SCIENTIFIC explanation.
Correct?
Update