On the web: science education and the presidential candidates

| 124 Comments

Jonathan Smith, VP of Florida Citizens for Science, will be interviewed by RadioExiles about teaching good science in schools, what is bad science, and the knowledge (or lack thereof) of the presidential candidates. The program “The seven day challenge” will be here at 11:30 am Eastern on Friday, December 2. It looks like the podcast will be available a bit later.

124 Comments

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

My tolerance for Atheistoclast has officially reached zero.

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

Jon Huntsman actually threatened to veto an anti-evolution bill when he was governor. The bill had already passed through the state senate, but after the threat of veto it was shot down.

Don’t expect any surprises from Rick Santorum as he wrote the forward to Phillip Johnson’s book “Darwin’s Nemesis.”

bio.jones said:

Jon Huntsman actually threatened to veto an anti-evolution bill when he was governor. The bill had already passed through the state senate, but after the threat of veto it was shot down.

I admit that I wouldn’t likely have voted for him anyway, but Huntsman is articulate and intelligent, capable of broad appeal, and apparently quite honest by US political standards.

To any sane person, he’s a far higher quality candidate than Romney or Gingrich, and a comparison with the likes of Cain, Bachmann, or Santorum is just insulting. (This is not intended as a complement to Romney or Gingrich; they are simply more competent at being right wing demagogues than the others.)

But Huntsman is not even being considered, and you can be fairly sure that his failure to deny scientific reality is a major reason why.

You can look forward to both Romney and Gingrich, neither of whose religion officially denies evolution, dissembling desperately in an effort to pander to creationists.

Do these candidates know more then anyone else about the contentions on the teaching of origin subjects.? If it matters what people in power think then it must matter what the people think who put them in power think. if it matters what the people think then it should be up to the people. I understand some 70% agree with equal time for creationism and some half agree with kinds of creationism in their opinions.

If it doesn’t matter what the people think then it could only matter what people in power think if they continue the present school censorship or end it. Thats the only question.

A line of reasoning.

Robert Byers said:

Do these candidates know more then anyone else about the contentions on the teaching of origin subjects.? If it matters what people in power think then it must matter what the people think who put them in power think. if it matters what the people think then it should be up to the people. I understand some 70% agree with equal time for creationism and some half agree with kinds of creationism in their opinions.

If it doesn’t matter what the people think then it could only matter what people in power think if they continue the present school censorship or end it. Thats the only question.

A line of reasoning.

Not a very good one. Democracy, as practiced in the US, is based on representatives whom the citizenry elect to represent them and make responsible decisions that reflect both the will of the people and the duty of government to institute policies in the best interest of the public. It often results in a compromise between conflicting interests. It also reflects the Rule of Law, in this case as embodied by the US Constitution. If the majority of citizens wish to deny equal rights to African-Americans, they cannot. If the majority want to establish a religion, they cannot. If the majority want to ban freedom of assembly, they cannot.

Sadly for you (and lucky for everyone), science is not decided by public opinion polls.

mplavcan said:

Robert Byers said:

Do these candidates know more then anyone else about the contentions on the teaching of origin subjects.? If it matters what people in power think then it must matter what the people think who put them in power think. if it matters what the people think then it should be up to the people. I understand some 70% agree with equal time for creationism and some half agree with kinds of creationism in their opinions.

If it doesn’t matter what the people think then it could only matter what people in power think if they continue the present school censorship or end it. Thats the only question.

A line of reasoning.

Not a very good one. Democracy, as practiced in the US, is based on representatives whom the citizenry elect to represent them and make responsible decisions that reflect both the will of the people and the duty of government to institute policies in the best interest of the public. It often results in a compromise between conflicting interests. It also reflects the Rule of Law, in this case as embodied by the US Constitution. If the majority of citizens wish to deny equal rights to African-Americans, they cannot. If the majority want to establish a religion, they cannot. If the majority want to ban freedom of assembly, they cannot.

Sadly for you (and lucky for everyone), science is not decided by public opinion polls.

True, science is not decided by public opinion, but what is taught can be subverted by school boards and politicians who could care less about science but more about the votes they can garner from the masses who know nothing of science, nor do they care, for their religion takes precedence over science in their minds.

Byers is illustrating an important notion here. He sees science and politics as being just like religions, where what is “true” depends on what most people think or believe is true. He sees creationism being presented as science not as a matter of whether it IS science, but as a matter of the political interests of a powerful constituency.

Neither politics nor religion, both unlike science, can appeal to physical reality to arbitrate disputes. Politics is about accommodating competing interests and creationism is about achieving power, and both of these are PR battles where facts really don’t matter. Power battles aren’t about about scientific facts, but rather about funding facts, organizational facts, voter preference facts.

And as creationists seem more acutely aware than scientists generally, political power easily trumps science - in determining curricula, in granting research money (and in prohibiting research that’s religiously sensitivie), in swaying the voters who ultimately are responsible for electing representatives, getting judges elected or appointed, and so on.

So for every individual court case creationists lose, they win a million home-schooled force-fed victims. All of whom grow up to be voters.

Flint said:

So for every individual court case creationists lose, they win a million home-schooled force-fed victims. All of whom grow up to be voters.

As I said on some other thread a couple of years ago, there is a hidden danger in a society whose food and resource distribution mechanisms are so efficient that they can support a large population regardless of whether any of them are in touch with reality. It allows huge numbers of people to be sheltered from the consequences of beliefs and behaviors that have nothing to do with reality.

And if they become a voting majority, that society crashes.

DavidK said:

True, science is not decided by public opinion, but what is taught can be subverted by school boards and politicians who could care less about science but more about the votes they can garner from the masses who know nothing of science, nor do they care, for their religion takes precedence over science in their minds.

And there, in a nutshell, is the problem.

Mike Elzinga said:

Flint said:

So for every individual court case creationists lose, they win a million home-schooled force-fed victims. All of whom grow up to be voters.

As I said on some other thread a couple of years ago, there is a hidden danger in a society whose food and resource distribution mechanisms are so efficient that they can support a large population regardless of whether any of them are in touch with reality. It allows huge numbers of people to be sheltered from the consequences of beliefs and behaviors that have nothing to do with reality.

And if they become a voting majority, that society crashes.

This may be a bit strong. After all, even the most ardent creationists are pragmatic empiricists about nearly every aspect of their lives. And they only oppose those aspects of science they find religiously offensive - which doesn’t necessarily even include biology. Many excellent physicians are creationists, but understand practical biology very well indeed. While such topics as physics, geology, atronomy, and others IMPLY that creationism is idiotic, you don’t see the DI working hard to undermine perfectly good curricula in all these disciplines.

And let’s face it, at worst the voters might elect/appoint leaders who will replace science in school with creationism where it’s deemed a Good Thing by creationists, reinstate daily prayers, etc. But realistically, the US became a dominant world power, mostly through scientific acumen, when all these things were taken for granted. Reinstituting the status quo ante doesn’t threaten a crash in any important way.

Conversely, if you could magically eliminate creationism overnight and imbue all its ex-victims with a deep understanding and appreciation of evolution, very very few if any would see any substantive change in their daily lives. Just how much evolution do you NEED to know to be a checkout clerk at WalMart? Or even a dentist, a lawyer, an engineer, an industrial designer, etc.?

I suggest that this danger is hidden because for practical purpose it’s not there. Deliberate ignorance is annoying, of course. But if I had the power to make the US more competitive internationally, this would be far from the top of my list.

Flint said:

I suggest that this danger is hidden because for practical purpose it’s not there. Deliberate ignorance is annoying, of course. But if I had the power to make the US more competitive internationally, this would be far from the top of my list.

I would suggest that it is there; and it showed up in the Greek civilization when the primary criterion for “citizenship” rather than slavery was the ability to “philosophize” and contemplate ideals and deities.

Many of the ruthless methods for ruling and keeping a hoard of slaves to support the “citizens” can be found even in Plato. The Greeks, and later the Romans, invented religions for the “masses.”

I would also suggest that much of what has happened since the industrial revolution has been the result of building that efficient food and resource distribution system and that the US has been damned lucky to have had relative isolation from the conflicts in Europe as well as plentiful resources that allowed independence.

Now we are “up against it” in our competition with the rest of the world and with a global population now passing seven billions. Reality is going to really count from now on. Sectarian fanaticism from any religious quarters will simply compound the disruption.

A cynical perspective is that some of the worst sectarian religions would best be used to “keep people in line.” Historically that has not worked in the long haul; people catch on; but only after the damage has been done.

Mike Elzinga said:

I would suggest that it is there; and it showed up in the Greek civilization when the primary criterion for “citizenship” rather than slavery was the ability to “philosophize” and contemplate ideals and deities.

Many of the ruthless methods for ruling and keeping a hoard of slaves to support the “citizens” can be found even in Plato. The Greeks, and later the Romans, invented religions for the “masses.”

I would also suggest that much of what has happened since the industrial revolution has been the result of building that efficient food and resource distribution system and that the US has been damned lucky to have had relative isolation from the conflicts in Europe as well as plentiful resources that allowed independence.

Now we are “up against it” in our competition with the rest of the world and with a global population now passing seven billions. Reality is going to really count from now on. Sectarian fanaticism from any religious quarters will simply compound the disruption.

A cynical perspective is that some of the worst sectarian religions would best be used to “keep people in line.” Historically that has not worked in the long haul; people catch on; but only after the damage has been done.

Maybe we’re talking about different things. I just don’t see ignorance about evolution, or even rejection of “macro” evolution, presenting all that much of a danger. So I tried to make two points:

1) Rejecting long-term evolution is at best highly marginal in terms of national overall capability; and

2) Such rejection does NOT render one broadly or even specifically incompetent in nearly every field where competence matters in any technological or economic way.

I worked for years with people who, unknown to me, were “sectarian fanatics”. They were also excellent engineers, rigorous and creative and skilled. And what we did was engineering. So you keep talking about all this damage, and about social crashes, but I just don’t see the link. If their rejection of evolution or of an old earth hadn’t come up in casual conversation, I’d never have suspected. It’s not all that broadly relevant, you know?

Flint said:

Maybe we’re talking about different things. I just don’t see ignorance about evolution, or even rejection of “macro” evolution, presenting all that much of a danger. So I tried to make two points:

1) Rejecting long-term evolution is at best highly marginal in terms of national overall capability; and

2) Such rejection does NOT render one broadly or even specifically incompetent in nearly every field where competence matters in any technological or economic way.

I worked for years with people who, unknown to me, were “sectarian fanatics”. They were also excellent engineers, rigorous and creative and skilled. And what we did was engineering. So you keep talking about all this damage, and about social crashes, but I just don’t see the link. If their rejection of evolution or of an old earth hadn’t come up in casual conversation, I’d never have suspected. It’s not all that broadly relevant, you know?

Ok, maybe we are talking about different things. I didn’t read your post carefully enough to realize you were talking mostly about the evolution deniers; my bad. And I agree that I am not as concerned about them.

My greater concerns lie with that far Right Wing fanaticism that seems to embrace not only anti-evolution, but denies the global environmental damage by humans, undermines objective, scientific evidence, and panders to proud, truculent ignorance.

They don’t stop at just cutting people off from access to vital information; they actually nourish the mental frame-of-mind that rejects all of objective reality by demonizing anyone who goes out and checks claims against reality.

And when the sex lives of flashy, narcissistic celebrities becomes the primary “information” that people in the majority crave, we can expect another Nero fiddling while civilization crumbles.

I suspect the ID/creationists are simply the canary in the coal mine of an already intellectually suffocating society inhaling its own intellectual exhaust fumes.

Richard B. Hoppe said:

My tolerance for Atheistoclast has officially reached zero.

What took you so long? He’s been lying constantly ever since he first came here!

Richard B. Hoppe said:

My tolerance for [Uber-Troll] has officially reached zero.

Thanks. It’s refreshing to be able to follow an interesting thread without the usual garbage.

Mike Elzinga -

My greater concerns lie with that far Right Wing fanaticism that seems to embrace not only anti-evolution, but denies the global environmental damage by humans, undermines objective, scientific evidence, and panders to proud, truculent ignorance.

I strongly agree with you here.

We don’t merely see an isolated rejection of evolution.

Creationism is strongly associated with an overall cult of denial of scientific and economic reality on many levels.

Any protection of the environment, any concept of scarce resources, any concept of preventative health habits, any social safety network, public education, any education for that matter, and the most basic regulations for the common good, right down to things like housing codes, tended to be opposed by the right wing. The economic strategy of constant war, huge military, and inadequate revenues cannot work yet is the default supported by all Republican candidates (almost certainly including even Huntsman).

Some older observations about the evolution/creation positions of the current candidates can be found at the Common Descent blog. Go to the June index on the right side, the blogger has multiple posts on the various candidates. (I am neither affiliated with or know that blogger, I found it via googling.)

eric said:

Some older observations about the evolution/creation positions of the current candidates can be found at the Common Descent blog. Go to the June index on the right side, the blogger has multiple posts on the various candidates. (I am neither affiliated with or know that blogger, I found it via googling.)

From that blog -

In a 2006 interview, Newt said this when asked if evolution was true: “Evolution certainly seems to express the closest understanding we can now have. But it’s changing too. The current tree of life is not anything like a 19th-century Darwinian tree. We’re learning a lot about how systems evolve and don’t evolve. Cockroaches became successful several hundred million years ago and just stopped evolving.” In other public appearances Newt has said that evolution appears to be true but that it doesn’t rule out a creative process. It appears that Gingrich does believe in evolution but doesn’t want to alienate the religious right. At least we can be sure he’s not a young earth creationist, as he has mentioned dinosaurs and deep geological time on several occasions.

Gingrich has gone from a mainstream position on climate change to a denialist position. (His statement about cockroaches is wrong from my point of view; persistence of a highly adaptive phenotype is not necessarily the same thing as “not evolving” and viewing it as such generates confusion. And all we know is that the morphology has shown relative stasis. However, this is a subtle point.)

He rarely bucks the mainstream Fox/Limbaugh/Tea Party right wing line; in fact, he was a major figure in its development. He is using trivially less anti-immigrant polemic than some other primary candidates, but that’s a well-considered ploy.

In terms of evolution, his way out is obvious here.

1) Almost certainly, make at least some “teach both/equal time” comments.

2) Very likely, make some “I don’t really know the age of the earth” comments.

I very strongly predict that if the issue comes up publicly, number 1) above will occur, and I give number 2) a high probability of occurring.

I very, very strongly predict that he will NOT defend strong science and respect for constitutional rights in schools.

I strongly predict the same for Romney.

It may not come up much publicly. Creationists tend to be well-satisfied with unrecorded speeches and private assurances that they’ll be given key roles in science-related government departments, and that the administration will take a generally hostile tone toward science. That’s how Bush/Cheney dealt with the issue. Does anybody think Dick Cheney privately believes that the earth is 6000 years old?

Here’s what Huntsman said -

Public schools are largely secular institutions. I would expect my kids in science class to be instructed in those things that are somewhat quantifiable and based on thorough and rigorous empirical research. If [design] comes up in sociology or philosophy as differing views on creation, I think that’s appropriate,” Huntsman said. “But that doesn’t happen until college or maybe later in high school.

He said it as obsequiously as possible, but it’s still an unacceptable failure to blow even a minimal “both should be taught” dog whistle, and it cost him.

My greater concerns lie with that far Right Wing fanaticism that seems to embrace not only anti-evolution, but denies the global environmental damage by humans, undermines objective, scientific evidence, and panders to proud, truculent ignorance.

They don’t stop at just cutting people off from access to vital information; they actually nourish the mental frame-of-mind that rejects all of objective reality by demonizing anyone who goes out and checks claims against reality.

And when the sex lives of flashy, narcissistic celebrities becomes the primary “information” that people in the majority crave, we can expect another Nero fiddling while civilization crumbles.

I think I understand your concerns, but I still disagree with your description. Yes, some sizeable percentage of the US population seems to desire a simpler world with clear answers and absolutes everywhere. But in practice, I must admit I do not see a bimodal distribution such as you imply. I see opposition to science as being quite narrowly focused, for a combination of economic and religious reasons. Opposition to the idea of AGW isn’t arbitrary, but rather based on the conviction that the necessarily highly politicized responses threaten to cause more harm than the warming does! And this isn’t unreasonable.

Being open to evidence, willing to collect and consider it, isn’t a natural thing for people to do. Some do so more readily, and science as a skill requires that this ability be practiced. But everyone HAS to be open to evidence even to cross the street, and scientists (being people) have the normal human difficulty changing their minds, especially if they feel they’re on record.

If the phenomenon of celebrity is the road to ruin, we’ve reached ruin since the beginning of recorded history!

So seriously, what you’re describing isn’t new, by my historical reading. A few gifted, lucky, or dedicated people have always dragged the rest, kicking and screaming all the way, into the future. Today, the people as a whole can buy artificial teeth to bite the hand that feeds them even more effectively - including the hand that invented the teeth! But somehow the economy still functions, science still advances, social programs still get tweaked continuously.

Maybe the world would be a much better place if everyone were like you. But even so, we don’t live in the parody world of The Marching Morons.

Opposition to the idea of AGW isn’t arbitrary, but rather based on the conviction that the necessarily highly politicized responses threaten to cause more harm than the warming does! And this isn’t unreasonable.

Yes it is, it’s absurdly unreasonable and dishonest. I’m absolutely shocked that you would suggest otherwise.

The reasonable, ethical thing to do would be to acknowledge the evidence and the range of logical conclusions, and then make a case, within the context of honest acknowledgement of the evidence, for a different preferred response.

(In fact, the behavior you refer to as “not unreasonable” strongly suggests that at some level, the denialists secretly concede that some sort of response that may be short term inconvenient to them is actually justified by the data. Otherwise, why panic and deny the evidence, or its logical interpretation? It would be far more convincing to say “I agree that this evidence indicates X, but here is the course of action I recommend” than to say “I deny the evidence”. Unless, of course, the action you recommend is so at odds with any ethical or pragmatic response to the evidence that it won’t be considered, unless you deny the evidence.)

For anyone with any training in science, engineering, or even a general university level education to treat objective reality as if it were a subjective preference is insincere and dishonest.

Allow me to elaborate.

I have subjective opinions that it would be almost impossible to persuade me to change. For example, I oppose executing people for a crime they didn’t commit. Not everyone agrees with that. Some death penalty advocates have said openly or privately that, due to the overall social good of a death penalty system and the inevitable imperfection of human decision making, we should accept that there will be an occasional wrong execution. (I will dig for the links if challenged on this.) But this is a question of subjective values.

However, when it comes to evaluating objective reality, I concede that I make the following more or less involuntary assumptions - I assume that my senses, when not interfered with by state of consciousness, intoxication, or pathology, provide accurate information about a real universe. I assume that others exist and that this is true for them. I also assume that the type of thinking called “logical”, which we can formalize but which is also intuitive, is correct.

Unless I deny one of these assumptions, I cannot honestly or sincerely deny objective reality, however little I may like it.

“Homosexuals are bad” is a subjective value judgment. “God hates homosexuals” is a theological/philosophical statement. “The earth is 6000 years old and biological evolution doesn’t take place” is a (false) testable statement about objective reality, that a person possessing the relevant information and ability to think logically cannot sincerely hold.

“I will claim that the earth is 6000 years old, not because I believe it, but so that others will persecute homosexuals”, or “I will deny evidence for climate change, not because I really think it is not valid, but dishonestly, to prevent ‘a highly politicized response’ from being supported by others” - if anyone is employing these strategies, such persons are repulsive scoundrels who cannot be defended under any mainstream ethical system. They are most certainly not “reasonable”.

The Byers troll has made an interesting comment, though not for the reasons it thinks: As bad as representative democracy is, direct democracy is worse.

dalehusband said:

Richard B. Hoppe said:

My tolerance for Atheistoclast has officially reached zero.

What took you so long? He’s been lying constantly ever since he first came here!

Hear! Hear! Good riddance I say to Joe Bozo.

harold said:

bio.jones said:

Jon Huntsman actually threatened to veto an anti-evolution bill when he was governor. The bill had already passed through the state senate, but after the threat of veto it was shot down.

I admit that I wouldn’t likely have voted for him anyway, but Huntsman is articulate and intelligent, capable of broad appeal, and apparently quite honest by US political standards.

To any sane person, he’s a far higher quality candidate than Romney or Gingrich, and a comparison with the likes of Cain, Bachmann, or Santorum is just insulting. (This is not intended as a complement to Romney or Gingrich; they are simply more competent at being right wing demagogues than the others.)

But Huntsman is not even being considered, and you can be fairly sure that his failure to deny scientific reality is a major reason why.

You can look forward to both Romney and Gingrich, neither of whose religion officially denies evolution, dissembling desperately in an effort to pander to creationists.

Much to his credit, Huntsman was interviewed on television a few months ago warning fellow Republicans that our party has an acute problem with anti-science bias that may have an adverse impact with the electorate in the 2012 elections. He is still my preferred candidate, though I would accept either Gingrich or Romney too; both of them do support the reality of biological evolution and Gingrich has stated more than once his keen interest in paleontology.

mplavcan said:

Robert Byers said:

Do these candidates know more then anyone else about the contentions on the teaching of origin subjects.? If it matters what people in power think then it must matter what the people think who put them in power think. if it matters what the people think then it should be up to the people. I understand some 70% agree with equal time for creationism and some half agree with kinds of creationism in their opinions.

If it doesn’t matter what the people think then it could only matter what people in power think if they continue the present school censorship or end it. Thats the only question.

A line of reasoning.

Not a very good one. Democracy, as practiced in the US, is based on representatives whom the citizenry elect to represent them and make responsible decisions that reflect both the will of the people and the duty of government to institute policies in the best interest of the public. It often results in a compromise between conflicting interests. It also reflects the Rule of Law, in this case as embodied by the US Constitution. If the majority of citizens wish to deny equal rights to African-Americans, they cannot. If the majority want to establish a religion, they cannot. If the majority want to ban freedom of assembly, they cannot.

Sadly for you (and lucky for everyone), science is not decided by public opinion polls.

If it comes back only to the rule of law then it doesn’t matter what candidates think. Save to preserve or overthrow the law.

Robert Byers said:

mplavcan said: Democracy, as practiced in the US, is based on representatives whom the citizenry elect to represent them and make responsible decisions that reflect both the will of the people and the duty of government to institute policies in the best interest of the public. It often results in a compromise between conflicting interests. It also reflects the Rule of Law…

If it comes back only to the rule of law then it doesn’t matter what candidates think. Save to preserve or overthrow the law.

It does not come back “only” to the rule of law. If you would kindly reread the message you responded to, you will see that that is one of at least three things mplavcan mentions as being important.

Flint said:

Maybe the world would be a much better place if everyone were like you. But even so, we don’t live in the parody world of The Marching Morons.

At my age, I would hope I no longer imagine that everyone should be more like me. I think I gave that up after I got out of adolescence.

I see humans as complex, extremely delicate organisms that are at the far, far extremes of delicate, complex systems that can be sustained in the narrow energy window of liquid water.

When I look at Fox Noise, Rush Limbaugh, the Koch brothers, and the current slate of Republican candidates in the context of the current world population and geopolitical issues, I see a huge yank in the direction of greater instability.

Now maybe these characters are getting too much press coverage because they are so freaky, but our own Republican congressman, who for years has been an effective moderate who could work across party lines, has flipped out with fear in order to cow-tow to the extremists in the GOP. And there is no sane moderate candidate in the wings to challenge him.

Yes, the push-back events in Wisconsin and Ohio are encouraging, but the overall picture doesn’t look promising as long as politics continues to divert attention away from confronting the really fundamental issues instead of being continually bogged down in ideological fantasies and bedroom policing that have nothing to do with reality.

Flint said:

Byers is illustrating an important notion here. He sees science and politics as being just like religions, where what is “true” depends on what most people think or believe is true. He sees creationism being presented as science not as a matter of whether it IS science, but as a matter of the political interests of a powerful constituency.

Neither politics nor religion, both unlike science, can appeal to physical reality to arbitrate disputes. Politics is about accommodating competing interests and creationism is about achieving power, and both of these are PR battles where facts really don’t matter. Power battles aren’t about about scientific facts, but rather about funding facts, organizational facts, voter preference facts.

And as creationists seem more acutely aware than scientists generally, political power easily trumps science - in determining curricula, in granting research money (and in prohibiting research that’s religiously sensitivie), in swaying the voters who ultimately are responsible for electing representatives, getting judges elected or appointed, and so on.

So for every individual court case creationists lose, they win a million home-schooled force-fed victims. All of whom grow up to be voters.

Yes these few court cases have motivated in thought and some deed great numbers of people. Court cases do that historically .

No. What is true is not based on public opinion. Evangelical Christianity or YEC are tiny minorities in North America. The 50% that support creationism are different tribes. However in a free nation the people must be the ones to decide these issues in mutually held institutions.

On a side note, this could be an invaluable to the study of thread entropy. Do all threads in an isolated system with the presence of John go from a state of on topic to off to drop kick Kwok’s schtick.

J. Biggs - speaking only for myself, I’d prefer if Kwok and detractors just took it to the BW. I’m genuinely interested in what the FL. Citizens for Science had to say about the candidates as well as other relevant info on them, such as provided by Red Right Hand.

eric said:

J. Biggs - speaking only for myself, I’d prefer if Kwok and detractors just took it to the BW. I’m genuinely interested in what the FL. Citizens for Science had to say about the candidates as well as other relevant info on them, such as provided by Red Right Hand.

Agreed, however IMO, even the BW is too good for this Kwok of crap (sorry John but you do this often enough that some might consider it trollish behavior). It’s hard to learn anything with all of this bickering about John. I totally get it, a lot of people don’t like John, his politics, could care less where he went to H.S. etc… and John refuses to let it go. Now that we have all that out of the way can we just try to get over it? And in all fairness to the other commenters, John, you haven’t really backed up your arguments with much evidence to support your position; now how that got us to accusations of you lusting after 15 year old girls on the subway, I haven’t a clue.

And it’s sunk. Thanks for participating, folks.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Richard B. Hoppe published on November 28, 2011 1:53 PM.

Tabanus subsimilis was the previous entry in this blog.

“You Win or You Die” - Unintentionally nourishing the ID rhetoricotrophs 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 4.37

Site Meter