Why we still have to take creationism seriously

| 134 Comments

Here’s a new video from NCSE that features Genie Scott talking about the latest theme/tactic of creationists, “academic freedom” (for which one could substitute “academic anarchy” with no loss of meaning).

Hat tip to Greg Laden.

134 Comments

Crosspost from Freshwater appeal thread.

ncse.org:

Webster et al. v. New Lenox School District et al. (Full title: Ray Webster and Matthew Dunne, by and through his parents and next best friends, Philip and Helen Dunne, Plaintiffs, v. New Lenox School District No. 122 and Alex M. Martino, and as Superintendent of New Lenox School District No. 122, Defendants)

In 1987, Ray Webster and Matthew Dunne sued the New Lenox School District of Illinois, as well as Alex Martino, the district superintendent. Webster was a junior high school social studies teacher in that district, and Dunne was one of his students.

After complaints about proselytizing in his class, Webster had been advised by the district to refrain from religious advocacy in his teaching, and in particular to refrain from teaching creation science. In the suit, Webster argued that he had a first amendment right to determine his own teaching curriculum, and that it was necessary to teach creation science in order to balance pro-evolution statements in the social studies textbook.

Dunne, for his part, argued that he had the right as a student to hear about creation science in school.

On May 25, 1989, US District Judge George Marovich dismissed their complaint, ruling that Webster could not teach creation science without violating the first amendment, and that the district had a right to require Webster to teach within its established curriculum framework. Marovich also ruled that Dunne’s desires to learn about creation science in school were outweighed by the district’s interest in avoiding the violation of the estalishment clause or other students’ first amendment rights. Webster appealed, but on November 6, 1990, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court decision.

All the legal documentation available to us for this case is provided at the bottom of this page. It is arranged in chronological order.

There is a lot of case law on the First Amendment issue. Freshwater will lose and probably in a summary judgement.

Here is one case from the National Center for Science Education, the good people who are part of the Reality Based Community.

I am pleased to say that Dr. Ron Paul supports academic freedom even if Dr.Hoppe does not:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw

Ron is a physician by training.

The creationists have already tried the academic freedom tactic. It failed in court and there is a lot of case law.

The fact that they are recycling old failures means they have run out of ideas. For now. But they will never go away. The DI gets about $4 million a year from Dominionist sources, including Ahmanson. Ahmanson is a billionaire and isn’t going to run out of money soon. It’s an easy and high paying job for a few propagandists.

Their other scam is teaching the strengths and weaknesses of evolution. Usually they just teach the creationist weaknesses which are strawpeople and lies. The strengths of evolution are omitted.

Strengths and weaknesses = beating up on evolution with handouts from the ICR, the DI, and Ham’s creation museum.

.

Great video. I especially liked the phylogeny of creationist bill language. Man these guys just can’t lie very well. Also a great discussion of the real meaning of “critical thinking” and “academic freedom”. Man these guys just aren’t very good at deceit.

Freshwater should have watched this video, It might have saved him some trouble. Maybe not.

Academic freedom claims for creationism fail for three reasons.

1. Creationism is a religious dogma. Rarely they try to hide it but they can’t stop babbling on about jesus, god, hell, and satan.

2. There aren’t always two sides to an issue. One side can simply be wrong. Creationism was proven wrong centuries ago.

3. There can be more than two sides to an issue. They are dozens of creation myths. Nowadays there are lots of Hindu creationists who claim the earth and humans are billions of years old. All but one can still be wrong.

Here’s the deal, good Pandas:

Louisiana Science Education Act. Texas Science Standards.

Critical thinking and academic freedom, won.

Eugenie Scott and her cult, lost.

A very merry Christmas, yes?

******

FL

(ps.…..I’m back, mostly at night.)

Why take creationism seriously?

Because highly vocal zealots are trying hard to undermine science education wherever they can.

FL said:

Here’s the deal, good Pandas:

Louisiana Science Education Act. Texas Science Standards.

Critical thinking and academic freedom, won.

FL is back, and he’s lying as usual.

If Louisiana’s and Texas’ educational programs are so great because of Creationist legislation, then how come they’re still turning out among the very worst test scores in the country?

It’s because FL is stupid enough to believe that repeating the same lie over and over and over and over again, we’ll eventually, magically believe him.

Eugenie Scott and her cult, lost.

Just because Eugenie Scott does not worship you or your bigoted interpretation of the Bible does not make her a “cultist.”

Just because you hate Evolution and Science and Education with your heart and disgusting soul does not make Evolution a “cult.” To define Evolution, Science, and or Education a “cult,” like the way you slander them, is to destroy the very definition of “cult.”

In other words, if Evolution is a cult, then so are cooking, and stamp-collecting and driving a car.

A very merry Christmas, yes?

Now that you’re back trolling here, absolutely not. FL, you have as much charm and grace as a perforated colon.

******

FL

(ps.…..I’m back, mostly at night.)

I would like to tell you that it would be better if you just stop posting, but, you take sexual delight in antagonizing us with your lies and trolling.

Henry J said:

Why take creationism seriously?

Because highly vocal zealots are trying hard to undermine science education wherever they can.

Like, for example, how FL always whines at us to believe his blatantly false slander.

In fact, FL, if you’re not lying, then how come there are no jobs or occupations based on Creationism outside of Christian apologists and swindlers?

Why is it that students who were taught by Creationists do not understand science at all?

Why is that the Oil and Agriculture Industries do not use or accept Creationism in any of its permutations?

In fact, why is it that, of those very few Creationist biologists, not a single one was ever educated by other Creationists, but by “evolutionist” (sic) and “Darwinist” (sic) biologists?

Rather telling.

Why is that the Oil and Agriculture Industries do not use or accept Creationism in any of its permutations?

You left out all of geology, the mining industry, and medicine.

The current model of cancer is a somatic cell evolutionary one. 100 million US citizens now living will die of a disease that some don’t believe is even possible. Not to mention antibiotic and anti-pathogen resistance which is a serious, predictable, and ubiquitous problem.

None of this really matters though to people who don’t eat or want to live a long healthy life.

apokryltaros said:

FL the delusional Xian creotard drooled:

Here’s the deal, good Pandas:

Louisiana Science Education Act. Texas Science Standards.

Critical thinking and academic freedom, won.

FL is back, and he’s lying as usual.

If Louisiana’s and Texas’ educational programs are so great because of Creationist legislation, then how come they’re still turning out among the very worst test scores in the country?

It’s because FL is stupid enough to believe that repeating the same lie over and over and over and over again, we’ll eventually, magically believe him.

Eugenie Scott and her cult, lost.

Just because Eugenie Scott does not worship you or your bigoted interpretation of the Bible does not make her a “cultist.”

Just because you hate Evolution and Science and Education with your heart and disgusting soul does not make Evolution a “cult.” To define Evolution, Science, and or Education a “cult,” like the way you slander them, is to destroy the very definition of “cult.”

In other words, if Evolution is a cult, then so are cooking, and stamp-collecting and driving a car.

A very merry Christmas, yes?

Now that you’re back trolling here, absolutely not. FL, you have as much charm and grace as a perforated colon.

******

FL

(ps.…..I’m back, mostly at night.)

I would like to tell you that it would be better if you just stop posting, but, you take sexual delight in antagonizing us with your lies and trolling.

Yeah apokryltaros, he’s back alright. Pity Floyd the clueless has forgotten that Zack Kopplin is still working with his Save Science in Louisiana group to try getting the LSEA repealed.

Anyway, it’s John from Facebook posting (Hey PT technical crew, can’t seem to sign in with my Facebook account, please check into this. Thanks.).

Atheistoclast said:

I am pleased to say that Dr. Ron Paul supports academic freedom even if Dr.Hoppe does not:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw

Ron is a physician by training.

A major reason - though not the only one - why I, as a Conservative Republican, can’t support the delusional Ron Paul. IMHO he’s just as bad as Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum.

While the rest of you are feeding, I’ll really spoil the party. I applaud Scott’s efforts 100%, but I’m afraid that, even if we win every case, and overturn the few that we lost, the heart of the problem will still remain, and we are guaranteed more battles, and more potential losses to the enemies of science and masters of rhetoric. So what else needs to be done, and how do we do it? It’s probably not what you’re thinking.

Try this. Ask a random person on the street who does not appear to be a Fundamentalist:

1. …to define “creationism.” Chances are they’ll call it a “belief” whether they agree or disagree with it. It may have been an honest belief in the Scopes era, but now it is a full-blown pseudoscience, in many mutually-contradictory versions, with the common strategy to promote unreasonable doubt of evolution by any means possible, while censoring the fatal weaknesses and contradictions in the “creationism” that those people on the street actually believe.

2. …whether Buckingham and Bonsell lied, and ~99% will say “who?” As they will when you ask who John Freshwater is, and why the DI neither helped him (because he shares their mission to promote unreasonable doubt of evolution), nor publicly criticized him for using the politically incorrect strategy.

3. …who described the multiple lines of independent evidence for evolution as “convergence, neither sought nor fabricated,” apparently painfully aware that “creationism,” despite decades of seeking and fabricating, is further from convergence than ever.

4. …which came first, the strategy to play “don’t ask, don’t tell” on the “what happened when” of “creationism,” or the strategy to replace an identified Creator with an unidentified designer.

5. …who said that the designer could be deceased, that, if the rules of science were relaxed to accommodate ID that it would also accommodate astrology, that reading the Bible as a science text is silly, and agrees that the design of life was implemented via ~4 billion years of common descent.

For #6, you can even ask one of the tiny minority that does know about Dover, Pope John Paul II’s statement, and Michael Behe’s position (and the DI’s apparent acceptance of it by default):

6. …Is it OK to teach “creationism” in Sunday School? Sadly, most people will say “yes.” To which I say, it may be legal to teach creationism, but not moral. It may be both legal and moral to teach Bible stories that many students already know not to take literally. But “creationism” is first and foremost deliberate misrepresentation of evolution, with the refutations of those misrepresentations censored. That is even more morally reprehensible in a class that teaches “thou shalt not bear false witness” than it is in a taxpayer-funded science class.

Frank J said:

While the rest of you are feeding, I’ll really spoil the party. I applaud Scott’s efforts 100%, but I’m afraid that, even if we win every case, and overturn the few that we lost, the heart of the problem will still remain, and we are guaranteed more battles, and more potential losses to the enemies of science and masters of rhetoric. So what else needs to be done, and how do we do it? It’s probably not what you’re thinking.

Try this. Ask a random person on the street who does not appear to be a Fundamentalist:

1. …to define “creationism.” Chances are they’ll call it a “belief” whether they agree or disagree with it. It may have been an honest belief in the Scopes era, but now it is a full-blown pseudoscience, in many mutually-contradictory versions, with the common strategy to promote unreasonable doubt of evolution by any means possible, while censoring the fatal weaknesses and contradictions in the “creationism” that those people on the street actually believe.

2. …whether Buckingham and Bonsell lied, and ~99% will say “who?” As they will when you ask who John Freshwater is, and why the DI neither helped him (because he shares their mission to promote unreasonable doubt of evolution), nor publicly criticized him for using the politically incorrect strategy.

3. …who described the multiple lines of independent evidence for evolution as “convergence, neither sought nor fabricated,” apparently painfully aware that “creationism,” despite decades of seeking and fabricating, is further from convergence than ever.

4. …which came first, the strategy to play “don’t ask, don’t tell” on the “what happened when” of “creationism,” or the strategy to replace an identified Creator with an unidentified designer.

5. …who said that the designer could be deceased, that, if the rules of science were relaxed to accommodate ID that it would also accommodate astrology, that reading the Bible as a science text is silly, and agrees that the design of life was implemented via ~4 billion years of common descent.

For #6, you can even ask one of the tiny minority that does know about Dover, Pope John Paul II’s statement, and Michael Behe’s position (and the DI’s apparent acceptance of it by default):

6. …Is it OK to teach “creationism” in Sunday School? Sadly, most people will say “yes.” To which I say, it may be legal to teach creationism, but not moral. It may be both legal and moral to teach Bible stories that many students already know not to take literally. But “creationism” is first and foremost deliberate misrepresentation of evolution, with the refutations of those misrepresentations censored. That is even more morally reprehensible in a class that teaches “thou shalt not bear false witness” than it is in a taxpayer-funded science class.

It’s a mindset Frank J in which people find talking about Katy Perry (and I say this even though I like some of her music alot), Aaron Rodgers of the Green Bay Packers, or Derek Jeter of the New York Yankees as subjects more worthy of discussion than having a serious conversation as to whether or not people need to recognize that we should have a science literate United States in which biological evolution is recognize as the very robust, well established scientific fact that it is, which is useful in understanding genetic research in improving crops and livestock or in developing vaccines for the flu and other illnesses, including maybe, one day, HIV/AIDS.

Frank J wrote:

“While the rest of you are feeding, I’ll really spoil the party. I applaud Scott’s efforts 100%, but I’m afraid that, even if we win every case, and overturn the few that we lost, the heart of the problem will still remain, and we are guaranteed more battles, and more potential losses to the enemies of science and masters of rhetoric. So what else needs to be done, and how do we do it? It’s probably not what you’re thinking.”

I agree. But Eugenie mentioned a course of action in her talk. She recommended that those who teach biology at the college level make a concerted effort to incorporate evolution into introductory biology and higher level classes. In this way, not only students will be exposed to proper scientific methodology and findings, but future teachers will also receive the training they need to teach evolution properly. SInce we have the evidence on out side, this is a critical step in eventually changing public perception. SInce college professors actually do have academic freedom, there is absolutely nothing preventing this from happening.

For example, I strongly emphasize the basics of the scientific method and incorporate evolution throughout Introductory Biology, including a lecture specifically on macroevolution. I do the same for Genetics, including lectures on population genetics. I also take this approach in Molecular Biology, first presenting basic mechanism of gene regulation, then incorporating this into discussions about development and evolutionary development. I also teach an upper level course in Evolutionary Genetics which includes more detailed discussions of all of these areas and includes phylogenetics. An undergraduate in this program is exposed to the scientific method and evolutionary theory from the first lecture to the last. Hopefully, this will eventually create better elementary and high school teachers who are better equipped to teach science in general and evolution in particular.

Of course you could also invite Eugenie to give a talk at your institution, she is great at exposing the lies and deceit of creationists. She is going to be in my neck of the woods in a few months. I will keep you posted.

FL said:

Here’s the deal, good Pandas:

Louisiana Science Education Act. Texas Science Standards.

Critical thinking and academic freedom, won.

Eugenie Scott and her cult, lost.

A very merry Christmas, yes?

******

FL

(ps.…..I’m back, mostly at night.)

Here’s the deal, Floyd:

Since 2008, when Jindal signed LSEA into law, not one teacher in any public school, in any Louisiana parish, has taken advantage of the section that would presumably allow for IDiot creationist supplemental material to be introduced – not one, not once, ever. Livingston parish toyed with the idea for awhile, but fortunately they stopped banging bibles long enough to get a dose of reality – they would be sued (and would lose) if they did. They dropped the idea. LSEA has done nothing whatsoever to enhance or improve science education in Louisiana. It is a worthless piece of idle legislation that no one dares to take advantage of. Here’s another deal; as soon as some liar for Jesus science teacher introduces some supplemental creationist claptrap in Louisiana, it will be challenged in court and the defendants (teacher\school district) will be dead on arrival – they will lose, guaranteed. Unfortunately, the real losers will be the kids when several million dollars is sucked out of the district’s education funds to pay plaintive and the court costs. Do you wonder why it hasn’t happened yet after three years? Maybe they aren’t as stupid as they seem in Louisiana. So, I wouldn’t say that Genie Scott and her “cult” (is that your term for science – a cult?) lost anything. This is just one more example of your lying for Jesus delusions. Kudos to Zack Kopplin on his efforts to repeal LSEA. I hope he’s successful, because no doubt at some point an IDiot science teacher will initiate civil litigation.

Sorry for feeding the FL troll. We can get around to “stupid in Texas” some other time.

Keelyn said:

Sorry for feeding the FL troll. We can get around to “stupid in Texas” some other time.

Why apologize?

FL posted bullshit and lies, and you vivisected him magnificently.

Atheistoclast said:

Ron (Paul) is a physician by training.

So was Josef Mengele.

No aspersion intended toward Rep. Paul, but toward AC’s implication that an MD somehow puts one on a higher moral plane.

To give an idea of the intractability of false beliefs:

1. There are still Flat Earthers around who base their geography on holy books. These days they are mostly Moslems, notably a bloody sect of murderers in Nigeria called Boku Harum.

2. There are still Geocentrists around. 20% of the US population (26% of the fundies), think the sun orbits the earth. They can’t diagram the solar system, a task I learned in the first grade.

This number of 20% is the percentage of the population who will believe anything no matter how dumb it is. I doubt the percentage of creationists in the USA will ever drop below 20%.

We can live with that. We already are. A lot of that 20% will be so dysfunctional, low in intelligence, and uneducated as to not matter much overall. Don’t forget that half the US population has a median IQ below 100.

raven said:

Don’t forget that half the US population has a median IQ below 100.

(gasp) You mean that half of us are BELOW AVERAGE?

That explains a lot, actually.

One problem: Of that 20%, many of them vote. In elections where turnout can be single digits, that means that they’re plenty capable of doing damage. They DO matter.

apokryltaros said:

Keelyn said:

Sorry for feeding the FL troll. We can get around to “stupid in Texas” some other time.

Why apologize?

FL posted bullshit and lies, and you vivisected him magnificently.

Am in complete agreement. As for Zach, though he is busy with his freshman studies in college (I won’t say which one, simply to deter delusional intellectually-challenged creotards from FL from trying to find his college e-mail address), he is still quite involved with his organization and is still committed toward repealing the LSEA via help he is getting from his friends and family in Louisiana.

DS Wrote:

She recommended that those who teach biology at the college level make a concerted effort to incorporate evolution into introductory biology and higher level classes. In this way, not only students will be exposed to proper scientific methodology and findings, but future teachers will also receive the training they need to teach evolution properly. SInce we have the evidence on out side, this is a critical step in eventually changing public perception. SInce college professors actually do have academic freedom, there is absolutely nothing preventing this from happening.

All well and good, but most people never take college biology, and ~90% who take high school biology have what little they have learned overwritten with a misconception-loaded caricaure within a year or 2. That’s what must change.

DS Wrote:

Of course you could also invite Eugenie to give a talk at your institution, she is great at exposing the lies and deceit of creationists. She is going to be in my neck of the woods in a few months. I will keep you posted.

Great, but I wish she would be clearer that by “creationists” she means “militant anti-evolution activists,” not the “masses” who just innocently repeat their misleading sound bites. I wish she would repeat some of the key points that she has made in the past, that that are too often ignored of late. One was to defuse the religion issue. That does not mean to pretend that the activists are not mostly radical Fundamentalists - they are - but to avoid criticizing the audience’s religion, and let them know that evolution does require them to reject God, or the stories that their own religious leaders might not even take literally. The other is to keep forcing the activists to take a position on what happened when. If only to show fence-sitters how they are retreating from anything remotely resembling a potential alternate scientific explanation. And seeking refuge under a political “big tent.”

Ken Miller, also an excellent speaker and writer, painfully observed our greatest weakness in “Only A Theory.” Which is that we let the anti-evolution activists unite evolution-deniers (YECs, OECs, non-Biblical literalists who accept common descent; Christians, Jews, even some agnostics like Berlinski), and divide us, usually along theist/atheist lines that have nothing to do with the healthy scientific disagreements that we don’t cover up.

We need our own “big tent.” And ironically we can have it without lying and evading questions.

Alien abduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_abductionCached - Similar

People claiming to have been abducted are usually called “abductees” or “ experiencers. …. affair than the ‘entirely unpredisposed’ official history would have us believe. …. When abductees ask why they are being studied or undergoing surgery, the …

that 5–6 percent of the general population might have been abducted. …

Another example of belief in cuckoo nonense, 5% or 15 million people think they have been abducted by UFO’s.

Of that 20%, many of them vote.

I’m not aware of any data on what percentage of Geocentrists vote. But it could be really small. A lot of those are going to have trouble finding a place to vote, reading anything, and are just struggling to survive in a modern civilization they can’t really understand.

Messed up links. Try this and this.

Frank J. -

I pretty much agree with everything you have said here, but there are a couple of points I’d like to make…

Ken Miller, also an excellent speaker and writer, painfully observed our greatest weakness in “Only A Theory.” Which is that we let the anti-evolution activists unite evolution-deniers (YECs, OECs, non-Biblical literalists who accept common descent; Christians, Jews, even some agnostics like Berlinski), and divide us, usually along theist/atheist lines that have nothing to do with the healthy scientific disagreements that we don’t cover up.

The one thing you can forget about is “dividing” them.

Since 1999, I have not encountered anyone who denies evolution or AGW, regardless of stated rationale, who was not a strong supporter of the mainstream Fox/Limbaugh/Liberty University right wing alliance.

Some people support some right wing economic policies without denying evolution, but evolution deniers virtually all support the same broad alliance.

While reality deniers are potential enemies to one another, they have a current mutual enemy in science.

Furthermore, science is a more annoying enemy. If fundamentalist Pentecostals and fundamentalist Jehovah’s Witnesses have a dispute, it’s all just a contest of will. They rely on the same technique - saying that something is correct because some authority says so. But science introduces objective testing of reality based on assumptions and logic that almost everyone finds intuitively credible. This causes discomfort.

They understand this basic message - “If we get rid of the most annoying common enemy first, then we can fight it out over the details later. But if we fight now, science will prevail”.

They understand that, they understand it instinctively, and you will not be able to convince them to break up their alliance with each other as long as the threatening common enemy remains.

Since 1999, I have not encountered anyone who denies evolution or AGW, regardless of stated rationale, who was not a strong supporter of the mainstream Fox/Limbaugh/Liberty University right wing alliance.

Some people are using that fact as evidence that fundie xianity has died in place. They don’t really believe in god anymore or read their magic books or care.

It’s all become extreme right wing politics with a few god stickers slapped on. Plus tribalism, ingroup outgroup identification.

If fundamentalist Pentecostals and fundamentalist Jehovah’s Witnesses have a dispute, it’s all just a contest of will.

Don’t underestimate the cultists’ differences. When they aren’t hating us, they hate each other.

3/4 of xian ministers claim the Mormons aren’t real xians.

There are splits between the Pentecostalists and everyone else.

The JW’s are non- Trinitarian, a big heresy among the Trinitarians.

Hi harold,

It’s JK in case you don’t recognize who this is (For some reason I can’t login via my Facebook account.), but we have someone who has been posting here lately, treeowl, who seems to have bought into the postmodernist thought espoused by some on the Left who think that science is just a “belief system” and that it does not produce anything resembling the truth. Some of that thought, as Ken Miller and Shawn Otto have noted, has seeped into the evolution denialist community too, especially amongst those who espouse Intelligent Design. So just because you haven’t seen any on the Left who are evolution denialists, doesn’t mean that they don’t exist (And I am saying this not to exonerate my fellow Conservatives and Republicans, but to remind you that there are most likely others who condemn evolutionary biology for reasons that have nothing to do with their Fundie Xian (or Jewish or Muslim, etc.) beliefs.

Robert Byers said:

eric said:

Robert Byers said: You make a point I see a lot. Science class is for science. Yet in fact it is this class that is teaching conclusions about origins.

Right. Most HS biology classes probably briefly disuss current scientific hypotheses for the OOL. They do not discuss non-scientific hypotheses for OOL, because discussion of non-scientific hypotheses do not belong in science classes. Teach them in philosophy or religion.

Creationism demands equal time about these conclusions being made.

Why should science classes give equal time to non-scientific hypotheses?

And have you given any thought to how impractical that is? There are hundreds or thousands of origins hypotheses. You don’t seriously want equal time for all of them; what you want is preferential treatment given to Christian fundamentalist hypotheses on origins. Which is both unconstitutional and bad pedagogy.

If conclusions on origins are being taught as true in science class then creationism has the right to equal time and on the merits of investigation makes its case.

AFAIK, nobody is teaching any specific origins hypothesis as ‘true’ because the question of exactly what happened is still open.

But be that as it may, no such “right” exists. You don’t have any more right to teach special creation in biology than you do to teach Moses’ parting of the red sea in history class, or the biblical claim that the sun stood still in astromony class.

Science class really is origin conclusion class.

Do you even know what is in a HS biology class curriculum? Do you know how little of it is spent discussing this subject? No one with any real knowledge of US science curricula could honestly make that statement.

In North america I hear very little is taught about origins in science class. however evolution is taught enough to be seen as making conclusions about origins.

Conclusions are taught with the understanding that the truth is being sought on these matters. This is presented as coming from study of evidence. Then they claim its scientific evidence.

Well creationism studys the evidence to criticize evolution etc or support our ideas also to seek the truth. So we do no different then anyone else. We do as much or as little science. We make a case on the evidence and some presumptions.

Again its about conclusions, like evolution, on origins that is the contention for what is being taught in science class. We are not opposing science but error in investigation. Non existent or bad science is our complaint along with our charge of error. We differ on the evidence and investigative competence behind interpretating the evidence.

Booby,

The only thing you bible-banging YECs do is whine and demand. You don’t study the evidence – the vast majority of YECs don’t have a whiff of a clue what science is, let only how it’s conducted, i.e. you’re not qualified to analyze the evidence. You don’t even know what the evidence is. Instead, you tout nitwits like Jason Lisle who spends years solving “problems” that don’t even exist in reality. What a waste of a Ph.D. If idiots like him had a picogram of intellectual honesty, they would tear their Ph.D. up and mail them back to the universities that issued them with minimal three-page letters of profuse apologies for wasting their time and resources.

Mr. Byers, how would you feel about teaching the Islamic version of creation in US science classrooms? Please do respond, because I want to understand this whole “equal time” thing.

Bobby,

In North america I hear very little is taught about origins in science class. however evolution is taught enough to be seen as making conclusions about origins.

Conclusions are taught with the understanding that the truth is being sought on these matters. This is presented as coming from study of evidence. Then its scientific evidence.

Well creationism does not study the evidence to criticize evolution etc or support their ideas also to seek the truth. So you do no science like anyone else. You do not as much or as little science whatsoevers. You do not make a case on the evidence but on some presumptions. If not, why are you never presenting any evidences? Exactly what be these so called evidences? All you are having is presumptions. Tell to us the evidences on which conclusion of origins you are making.

Again its about conclusions, like evolution, on origins that is the contention for what is being taught in science class. You are opposing science but having only error in investigation. Non existent or bad science is what you are be doing along with your charge of error. We differ on the evidence and investigative competence behind interpretating the evidence. We have the competences, you have not. How could you be telling experts they are not having competences when you are having not competences? You are just blowing smoke out of orifices regarding conclusions on origins.

DS said:

Bobby,

In North america I hear very little is taught about origins in science class. however evolution is taught enough to be seen as making conclusions about origins.

Conclusions are taught with the understanding that the truth is being sought on these matters. This is presented as coming from study of evidence. Then its scientific evidence.

Well creationism does not study the evidence to criticize evolution etc or support their ideas also to seek the truth. So you do no science like anyone else. You do not as much or as little science whatsoevers. You do not make a case on the evidence but on some presumptions. If not, why are you never presenting any evidences? Exactly what be these so called evidences? All you are having is presumptions. Tell to us the evidences on which conclusion of origins you are making.

Again its about conclusions, like evolution, on origins that is the contention for what is being taught in science class. You are opposing science but having only error in investigation. Non existent or bad science is what you are be doing along with your charge of error. We differ on the evidence and investigative competence behind interpretating the evidence. We have the competences, you have not. How could you be telling experts they are not having competences when you are having not competences? You are just blowing smoke out of orifices regarding conclusions on origins.

LOL! That seems to put things in perspective, DS. That should all make perfect sense to Booby. Maybe he’ll get it now.

Oh, nevermind. He’s well beyond the point of “getting” anything (science, that is).

Thanks Keelyn.

But I’m not necessarily just trying to make fun of Robert and I’m certainly not wasting my time trying to convince him of anything. I am actually trying to make a few points with the parody: if you think that your opinion is evidence, then you must be prepared to accept the opinion of someone else as being equally valid; if you you continually post about the importance of evidence, without ever actually presenting any, then others are under no obligation to provide any either; if the only argument you can muster is to mindlessly parrot the words that others use to validly criticize you, you should not expect any more consideration in return; if you can’t be bothered to even attempt to use proper syntax and grammar, you shouldn’t expect that anyone else will feel obligated to try either.

Oh well, at least he did provide some evidence for his claim, (on another thread), that if you haven’t got a coherent thought in your head, you don’t really need to use language properly to express yourself.

I mostly agree with your first two paragraphs.

Robert Byers said: Well creationism studys the evidence to criticize evolution etc or support our ideas also to seek the truth.

But you don’t do it using the scientific methodology. Kids take science to learn how to do science and what science says about phenomena; not to learn how to do biblical exegesis or to learn what the bible says about certain phemonena.

So we do no different then anyone else.

The process by which you draw conclusions is different; its not science.

This is why lab courses are required in any good science curriculum; because science, at heart, is not rote memorization of a set of conclusions, its a practice. Kids are there to learn how to DO science. And assessing what the bible says on some matter is not how one does science.

Again its about conclusions, like evolution, on origins that is the contention for what is being taught in science class.

I disagree. I think its “about” the method and practice of science. That is what kids need to learn, and frankly, what universities probably care most about. Many important conclusions flow from that method, and its important to teach those too. But the “what it says” is best taught as flowing from and a natural consequence of “how to do.”

We are not opposing science but error in investigation. Non existent or bad science is our complaint along with our charge of error.

This is pure baloney and you know it. What you oppose is kids learning anything that you believe contradicts the bible. Creationism as a social movement has a clear record of first trying to ban evolution. When that didn’t work, you tried to teach creationism alongside it. When that didn’t work, you tried ID. And now finally, since ID didn’t work, you have turned to calls for ‘strengths and weaknesses’ and ‘academic freedom.’ This is not “your complaint.” Its the fourth in a long series of fall back positions.

Do you really think you are fooling anyone when you claim this new, fourth, position is what you wanted all along?

And on a personal note - why claim this? Why not just be honest? Nobody here believes you’re really concerned about improving the quality of evolution education. If you could simply eliminate evolution from the curriculum altogether, you would. So why pretend otherwise?

eric said:

I mostly agree with your first two paragraphs.

Robert Byers said: Well creationism studys the evidence to criticize evolution etc or support our ideas also to seek the truth.

But you don’t do it using the scientific methodology. Kids take science to learn how to do science and what science says about phenomena; not to learn how to do biblical exegesis or to learn what the bible says about certain phemonena.

So we do no different then anyone else.

The process by which you draw conclusions is different; its not science.

We are not opposing science but error in investigation. Non existent or bad science is our complaint along with our charge of error.

This is pure baloney and you know it.

It is pure baloney, but Robert is too brain-damaged to realize this. If he realized this, he would be far more smarmy like FL or Atheistoclast.

What you oppose is kids learning anything that you believe contradicts the bible.

This is true: remember Byers’ idiotic claim that teaching science in a science classroom violates the 1st Amendment because that was showing favoritism of one religion (i.e., “science”) over Creationism (yet, teaching Creationism in a science classroom was perfectly fine because it magically wasn’t religious in nature).

Creationism as a social movement has a clear record of first trying to ban evolution. When that didn’t work, you tried to teach creationism alongside it. When that didn’t work, you tried ID. And now finally, since ID didn’t work, you have turned to calls for ‘strengths and weaknesses’ and ‘academic freedom.’ This is not “your complaint.” Its the fourth in a long series of fall back positions.

One wonders what new position the Creationists will come up with when “strengths and weaknesses” and “academic freedom” inevitably fail, too.

Do you really think you are fooling anyone when you claim this new, fourth, position is what you wanted all along?

Yes, Byers is, indeed, that stupid enough to assume we’d be stupid enough to fall for his latest schtick.

And on a personal note - why claim this? Why not just be honest? Nobody here believes you’re really concerned about improving the quality of evolution education. If you could simply eliminate evolution from the curriculum altogether, you would. So why pretend otherwise?

Robert Byers pretends this because he’s a brain-damaged idiot programmed to spew Creationist soundbytes by his spiritual handlers.

mjcross42 said:

Mr. Byers, how would you feel about teaching the Islamic version of creation in US science classrooms? Please do respond, because I want to understand this whole “equal time” thing.

Feel its a waste of time. Indeed all Americans would. The point is always its up to the public to decide in the democratic tradition. Creationism(s) are very popular and I understand some 70% already agree with equal time. The peoples choice.

eric said:

I mostly agree with your first two paragraphs.

Robert Byers said: Well creationism studys the evidence to criticize evolution etc or support our ideas also to seek the truth.

But you don’t do it using the scientific methodology. Kids take science to learn how to do science and what science says about phenomena; not to learn how to do biblical exegesis or to learn what the bible says about certain phemonena.

So we do no different then anyone else.

The process by which you draw conclusions is different; its not science.

This is why lab courses are required in any good science curriculum; because science, at heart, is not rote memorization of a set of conclusions, its a practice. Kids are there to learn how to DO science. And assessing what the bible says on some matter is not how one does science.

Again its about conclusions, like evolution, on origins that is the contention for what is being taught in science class.

I disagree. I think its “about” the method and practice of science. That is what kids need to learn, and frankly, what universities probably care most about. Many important conclusions flow from that method, and its important to teach those too. But the “what it says” is best taught as flowing from and a natural consequence of “how to do.”

We are not opposing science but error in investigation. Non existent or bad science is our complaint along with our charge of error.

This is pure baloney and you know it. What you oppose is kids learning anything that you believe contradicts the bible. Creationism as a social movement has a clear record of first trying to ban evolution. When that didn’t work, you tried to teach creationism alongside it. When that didn’t work, you tried ID. And now finally, since ID didn’t work, you have turned to calls for ‘strengths and weaknesses’ and ‘academic freedom.’ This is not “your complaint.” Its the fourth in a long series of fall back positions.

Do you really think you are fooling anyone when you claim this new, fourth, position is what you wanted all along?

And on a personal note - why claim this? Why not just be honest? Nobody here believes you’re really concerned about improving the quality of evolution education. If you could simply eliminate evolution from the curriculum altogether, you would. So why pretend otherwise?

Your point on method. It does come down to creationism saying methodology on origins is bad science or non-existent science. Science class is teaching conclusions on origins. tHe rub really is that they are saying its from excellent investigation of evidence. We say it ain’t. So we seek to interfere with the claims that excellent investigation of evidence is behind the origin conclusions in science class. Fair and square. We are saying the kids must get criticisms of conclusions and methodology (that gives the confidence in the conclusions) on origins in science class. We can get this with the people . Its only state censorship that stands in the way in schools.

rObert is right this time. iT is only state censorship that stands in the way of people preaching their religion in science classes instead of the real science. nOw you know why it is so important to make sure that that doesn’t change, no matter what the majority of people want.

And of course Robert is wrong about teaching the Islamic version of creationism. There are many people in this country that would support that. iF they were in the majority, according to rObert, they should be allowed to do so. The only reason he con see to prevent them from doing so is that they are currently not in the majority.

pErhaps one day rObert will see the consequences of his illogical position, pErhaps not. Until then he can go merrily on his way making claims without providing any evidence and everyone can completely ignore all of his opinions.

The joke is on you Byers. Your version of creation IS the Islamic version. Adam, Eve, Eden, talking serpents and eternal punishment for the sin of seeking knowledge. Consider yourself PWNED. Enjoy your attempts to foist Sharia educational principles on everyone. You have already failed, miserably.

Robert Byers said:

Its only state censorship that stands in the way in schools.

Robert Byers, it is not “state censorship.” Young Earth Creationism is nothing but anti-science religious propaganda.

It is illegal to teach Creationism in science classrooms because A) it’s not science, and B) it would be favoring a religion in a public setting.

Furthermore, Byers, you still refuse to explain how or why Creationism is supposed to be scientific.

Your constant whining that it simply is does not count as evidence.

Robert Byers said:

Its only state censorship that stands in the way in schools.

This is a false statement.

Young earth creationism isn’t even a xian doctrine. Most xians worldwide don’t have a problem with evolution.

It’s a fundie death cult xian lie.

It is a lot of taxpayers and parents among others who prevent YECism from being taught in our kid’s science classes. Many of those are other xians from denominations that value the truth and science over lies.

raven said:

Robert Byers said:

Its only state censorship that stands in the way in schools.

This is a false statement.

Young earth creationism isn’t even a xian doctrine. Most xians worldwide don’t have a problem with evolution.

It’s a fundie death cult xian lie.

It is a lot of taxpayers and parents among others who prevent YECism from being taught in our kid’s science classes. Many of those are other xians from denominations that value the truth and science over lies.

Of course, why should Robert Byers care about what’s being (or not being) taught and allegedly censored in American schools, when he’s also claimed he’s Canadian?

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Richard B. Hoppe published on December 17, 2011 7:46 PM.

This Week in Intelligent Design - 16/12/11 was the previous entry in this blog.

Underground lake, Chapat Cave 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