Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

| 186 Comments

That is the title of a YouTube video by Bill Nye, the Science Guy. The punchline is essentially this,

And I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, in your world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that’s fine, but don’t make your kids do it because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need people that can–we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems.

An appalling fraction of the comments are negative.

See also here for an article to the effect that reports of Mr. Nye’s death are exaggerated.

Acknowledgment. Thanks to Yan Linhart for notifying me about the Slate article.

186 Comments

Youtube Comments tend to be a wasteland even among internet wastelands. Plus a video with over 2 million views in a few days will have comments moving too quickly to make headway.

Which is really frustrating, because I’m watching them update in real time and there’s just so much misinformation in that stream.

Trouble with that last sentence is, we know that being a creationist (and some other varieties of crackpot for that matter) is no great barrier to being an engineer, often a quite good one. Now scientifically literate voters and taxpayers, OTOH.…

Yes, that was an odd remark about engineers. Indeed, the fact that engineers tend to operate quite the opposite of evolution, rationally and with intent, means that an all-too-high fraction of engineers are creationists of some sort. Surely all function involves “hammers and nails”…

So I can’t say that engineers need to know evolution for their jobs. But to keep from confusing what they make with what we find in life, they do need to know that life is different and why it is.

Glen Davidson

Bill Nye The Fisked Guy

What’s concerning is that Nye represents an increasingly prevalent view among materialists – one that hopes to restrict freedom of expression for skeptics of Darwinian evolution.

And I’m not just talking about the standard NCSE-style intolerance which opposes teaching about scientific views that challenge Darwinism in schools. I’m talking about Nye’s unwillingness to endorse parents’ rights to inculcate in their own children their doubts about Darwin.

It’s scary to think what the world would look like if these people had their way.

Meanwhile, many in the scientific community continues to criticize the Darwinian paradigm.

Bill Nye is welcome to believe and say whatever he wants about evolution. But perhaps Nye has some catching up to do, both in his scientific understanding of the current status of Darwinian evolution, and his commitment to liberal values like freedom of speech, freedom of inquiry, and parental rights.

–from “Bill Nye the Intolerant Science Guy: ‘Your Kids’ Need to ‘Believe in’ Evolution,” by Casey Luskin, Evolution News and Views, 8-27-2012.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/0[…]1063641.html

Perfectly stated, all the way.

FL

Perfectly stated incoherent, all the way.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmg[…]X_Zhn8#57cad said:

Yes, that was an odd remark about engineers. Indeed, the fact that engineers tend to operate quite the opposite of evolution, rationally and with intent, means that an all-too-high fraction of engineers are creationists of some sort. Surely all function involves “hammers and nails”…

So I can’t say that engineers need to know evolution for their jobs. But to keep from confusing what they make with what we find in life, they do need to know that life is different and why it is.

Glen Davidson

I agree with Bill Nye - engineers should ideally be familiar with biological evolution.

Competent engineers should not project human engineering intent onto the universe.

You can function as an engineer, or at least in certain types of engineering, in a very concrete, incurious way, with day to day competence, even while holding compartmentalized belief in creationist nonsense.

You can function as a physician, dentist, biochemist, attorney, etc, too, that way. But it’s not optimal.

Bill Nye hit the nail hard on the head here.

The obsession of authoritarian creationists is to force other people, especially their children, to kowtow to their absurd denialist belief system.

They can never win.

FL said:

Bill Nye The Fisked Guy

What’s concerning is that Nye represents an increasingly prevalent view among materialists – one that hopes to restrict freedom of expression for skeptics of Darwinian evolution.

And I’m not just talking about the standard NCSE-style intolerance which opposes teaching about scientific views that challenge Darwinism in schools. I’m talking about Nye’s unwillingness to endorse parents’ rights to inculcate in their own children their doubts about Darwin.

It’s scary to think what the world would look like if these people had their way.

Meanwhile, many in the scientific community continues to criticize the Darwinian paradigm.

Bill Nye is welcome to believe and say whatever he wants about evolution. But perhaps Nye has some catching up to do, both in his scientific understanding of the current status of Darwinian evolution, and his commitment to liberal values like freedom of speech, freedom of inquiry, and parental rights.

–from “Bill Nye the Intolerant Science Guy: ‘Your Kids’ Need to ‘Believe in’ Evolution,” by Casey Luskin, Evolution News and Views, 8-27-2012.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/0[…]1063641.html

Perfectly stated, all the way.

FL

How is Bill Nye or anyone else interfering with your expression of creationism?

I’ve said a million times that I am ready to be convinced by any positive evidence of creationism. Post it here any time. No-one is stopping you.

What you want is censorship - censorship of anyone who accurately critiques you and censorship of ideas that make more sense than the ones you promote.

FL said:

Bill Nye The Fisked Guy

What’s concerning is that Nye represents an increasingly prevalent view among materialists – one that hopes to restrict freedom of expression for skeptics of Darwinian evolution.

And I’m not just talking about the standard NCSE-style intolerance which opposes teaching about scientific views that challenge Darwinism in schools. I’m talking about Nye’s unwillingness to endorse parents’ rights to inculcate in their own children their doubts about Darwin.

It’s scary to think what the world would look like if these people had their way.

Meanwhile, many in the scientific community continues to criticize the Darwinian paradigm.

Bill Nye is welcome to believe and say whatever he wants about evolution. But perhaps Nye has some catching up to do, both in his scientific understanding of the current status of Darwinian evolution, and his commitment to liberal values like freedom of speech, freedom of inquiry, and parental rights.

–from “Bill Nye the Intolerant Science Guy: ‘Your Kids’ Need to ‘Believe in’ Evolution,” by Casey Luskin, Evolution News and Views, 8-27-2012.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/0[…]1063641.html

Perfectly stated, all the way.

FL

Who is restricting freedom of expression? – Bill Nye is using his 1st Amendment rights to scold stupid people who are trying to hold their own children back. Naturally this pisses of stupid people but it does not harm their rights in society.

Who is telling the truth here? – Bill Nye’s opponents have no problem with claiming that the science popularizer is dead. Casey Luskin has no problem inventing scientists opinions when is no scientist himself and does not poll scientists in a reliable manner.

Are parents’ rights to raise their children how they see fit completely unfetted? – No. Parents don’t deserve respect if they rape their children, if they extinguish cigarettes on their children, if they set out to wreck their children’s ability to function as adults. Here Bill Nye rightly points out that anti-science indoctrination wrecks children’s ability to learn things they need to know. Some parents are complete monsters and it is no excuse that “they meant well” if they are harming their children.

Does Casey Luskin know anything about science? – It doesn’t matter, because even if he did know something he is programmed to lie about it repeatedly, loudly, and inconsistently. Casey Luskin cites no scientific criticisms of common descent with modification because there are none. Casey Luskin cites no scientific criticisms of population genetics because there are none. Casey Luskin is forced to invent stories about “Darwinism” and misportray discussions about what percentage of gene fixations are a result of natural selection as evidence scientists have discarded the idea. Casey Luskin roundly ignores the whole of biological history to claim that there is no evolution – so on matters of biological import, it is best to ignore Casey Luskin.

Heh heh hehe! Casey is such a funny guy!

What’s concerning is that Nye represents an increasingly prevalent view among materialists – one that hopes to restrict freedom of expression for skeptics of Darwinian evolution.

LOL! Sorry Casey, but this is just a plain old dumb canard. As other have noted in their questions to Floyd, Nye (nor any other “materialist” for that matter) is not suggesting restricting anything. You want to follow and investigate ID, UFOs, Big Foot, astrology, or anything else similar - have at it. What you can’t do is call any of that investigation “science” unless and until you agree to follow the scientific methodology. It’s that simple. Thus far, ID proponents refuse to do so and so their opinions or “findings” cannot be endorsed by the government as science. You are more than welcome to preach your findings from any other non-government sponsored pulpit you wish however - which, ironically, is exactly what your 138 followers can see you do on your blog. Enjoy!

And I’m not just talking about the standard NCSE-style intolerance which opposes teaching about scientific views that challenge Darwinism in schools. I’m talking about Nye’s unwillingness to endorse parents’ rights to inculcate in their own children their doubts about Darwin.

Why would he do such a thing? He’s a scientist! Of course he’s going to suggest such inculcation is ignorant. And yet neither he nor any other “materialist” is even remotely suggesting that parents don’t or shouldn’t have such rights. So you’re claim of some alleged “restriction of freedom” is just so much hogwash.

It’s scary to think what the world would look like if these people had their way.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! We do have our supposed “ways” Casey! You lost at Dover. In fact teaching creationism (oh…sorry…I mean “ID Science”) as “science” is still illegal. That’s “our way”. We get to continue to teach actual science using a real methodology in public science classes. You get to wallow in propaganda. Everyone’s happy!

Meanwhile, many in the scientific community continues to criticize the Darwinian paradigm.

Utter nonsense. Funny how your claims lack…you know…any actual references to these supposed “Darwinian paradigm criticizers in the scientific community”.

Bill Nye is welcome to believe and say whatever he wants about evolution. But perhaps Nye has some catching up to do, both in his scientific understanding of the current status of Darwinian evolution, and his commitment to liberal values like freedom of speech, freedom of inquiry, and parental rights.

And what supposedly does Nye need to “catch up on”? ‘Cause aside from you folks at the UD constantly losing your legal battles to try and sneak your religious views into science classes, I don’t see that much has changed.

Oh, but you’re right on one point I guess: the current status of evolution as a scientific theory goes has gotten much stronger. But I’m willing to bet that Mr. Nye already knows that.

Luskin, as always, is lying.

There is no scientific explanation of the origin of the species other than evolution. There is no loss of consensus among scientists about the Theory of Evolution. There are no scientific views that challenge evolution. There is no dissent from acceptance of it, among relevant scientists. What the world would look like if science alone were taught as science in the public schools is the way it looks, pretty generally, bating the existence of Freshwaters here and there, and an understandable reluctance to annoy religious fanatics like FL, because religious fanatics are dangerous. But it is Luskin, not Nye, who wants radical change.

FL has battened on “information”. He’s ten or more years behind the curve. The DI thought of that one further back than that. But it’s another lie. Natural systems create information without direction or purpose. Life is a particularly spectacular instance of the effect, but there is no reason to think that it is anything more. Claims of supernatural action are gap claims, and the gaps have been shrinking steadily ever since science began investigating natural phenomena, and they continue to shrink. Claims of a supernatural origin for life, if that is all they are, concede evolution and common descent.

Which is why FL shouldn’t be quoting Luskin and the DI with such approval. Of course that approval will last precisely as long as it takes FL’s little sect to establish their longed-for theocracy. Then it would be Luskin and Wells to the stake with the rest of us. They’re just as much in apostasy as I am.

Luskin’s a fool not to know this. But a fool is foolish in many ways. What’s important is that Luskin is a liar.

I’m a Christian, and an evolution “enthusiast”. I’ll tell you why Bill Nye is right, and why Creationism, or ID, or any other such claptrap should not be taught alongside science in schools: because doing so makes the Christian faith look ridiculous by comparison. Kind of like judging your wife solely by her ability to bench press 250 pounds – she ain’t there for weight lifting. When I read of right-wing nuts demanding “teach the controversy” or some other crap, I wince because they are doing our faith great harm.

Christianity’s great value – and it is substantial, if done right – is spiritual. Evolution tells a fantastic story: I call it God’s finest hour. I pity the Christians who cannot, or will not, see this. And I measure the shallowness of their faith by their reluctance to face this.

Indeed, the fact that engineers tend to operate quite the opposite of evolution, rationally and with intent, means that an all-too-high fraction of engineers are creationists of some sort.

I think what’s operating here is a recruitment function. What fields CAN you go into comfortably, if you are scientifically inclined but saddled with indelible creationists beliefs? You’re pretty much limited to “by the numbers” fields where you have an intense need to understahd how things work but no need to understand why they work that way. So we see creationists of this sort moving heavily into careers as engineers or physicians, rather than theorists or biologists.

I think Bill Nye is wrong in this respect. I’ve watched creationist engineers generate elegant and ingenious designs, wonderfully appropriate for the target applications, inexpensive to manufacture, unlikely to break down in ordinary use, etc. I’ve watched creationist engineers invent the tools necessary to build the tools, from raw materials to finished products.

And I’ve read that others have watched physicians who are highly skilled at correct diagnosis despite lots of irrelevant or misleading noise, who understand the dangers and resulting trade-offs of various treatments available, who understand human variation and how to accommodate it. Yeah, these are connect-the-dots people, but there are entirely too many dots for most physicians to deal with, and most of those dots aren’t part of the picture. A creationist is not handicapped in finding and connecting the right dots.

And even beyond this there are scientists like Kurt Wise or Marcus Ross who can “adopt the materialist paradigm” if the problem calls for it, and do so very competently. Such folks can demonstrate evolutionary mechanisms with great rigor, consiliance, repeatability, etc. and STILL not “believe in” it.

Creationism isn’t all that much of a handicap for even a scientist. I think Bill Nye’s real point is that creationism discourages people from considering science as a career. And indoctrinated creationists competing in life are like entrants in the Special Olympics - involuntary victims of circumstances beyond their control, but in their case something we can DO something about. Maybe.

Flint unwittingly gives his game away by implying that science can explain the ‘why’ of things. He dreams of the day when science replaces religion as the go-to guy for ultimate answers.

But we know science is in the business of the ‘how’ and not the ‘why’. Different animals.

Curious why supporters of ID understand the difference but design deniers do not.

I think what’s operating here is a recruitment function. What fields CAN you go into comfortably, if you are scientifically inclined but saddled with indelible creationists beliefs? You’re pretty much limited to “by the numbers” fields where you have an intense need to understahd how things work but no need to understand why they work that way. So we see creationists of this sort moving heavily into careers as engineers or physicians, rather than theorists or biologists.

SteveP. said:

But we know science is in the business of the ‘how’ and not the ‘why’. Different animals.

Curious why supporters of ID understand the difference but design deniers do not.

Then how come supporters of Intelligent Design want to replace science with what has been demonstrated to be useless sophistry?

emeans said:

Christianity’s great value – and it is substantial, if done right – is spiritual. Evolution tells a fantastic story: I call it God’s finest hour. I pity the Christians who cannot, or will not, see this. And I measure the shallowness of their faith by their reluctance to face this.

To demonstrate, look at the various comments by the Trolls for Jesus, like, SteveP’s, for example.

Steve, as usual, is riffing on the variant definitions of English words, not anything that has substance in reality. He is doing this because he has nothing to say about reality, and has long ago retreated into mumbo-jumbo.

The word “why” has two related but separate meanings. One is “with what cause”. The other is “with what intent”. Flint used the word in the former sense. Steve is imputing to him the latter.

It really is that simple, a straightforward piece of verbal sleight-of-hand, done, as sleight-of-hand always is, to deceive and mislead. It is playing with words, and Steve is either too fuddled or too dishonest, or both, to admit it.

As Nye correctly points out, if you hold your presuppositions inviolate and are willing to ignore all evidence to the contrary, if you are willing to remain willfully ignorant in order to cling to your cherished beliefs, if you are willing to live in a universe that is ultimately inexplicable and not amenable to human understanding, if your are determined to accept the easy answer that explains nothing and predicts nothing, the least you could do is not demand that your offspring be handicapped by the same form of myopathy.

Of course every parent has the right to saddle his offspring with any religious baggage they choose. The point is that, just because it is your right, doesn’t mean that it is a good idea. There may still be some vocations that they can become competent in, but there will be many doors that are forever closed by the inability to comprehend and accept the methods and conclusions of science. The trolls here adequate demonstrate the absolute inability to comprehend, let alone honor, the concept of evidence. This is your brain on creationism. What a waste of the awesome potential conferred by three billion years of evolution.

emeans said:

I’m a Christian, and an evolution “enthusiast”. I’ll tell you why Bill Nye is right, and why Creationism, or ID, or any other such claptrap should not be taught alongside science in schools: because doing so makes the Christian faith look ridiculous by comparison. Kind of like judging your wife solely by her ability to bench press 250 pounds – she ain’t there for weight lifting. When I read of right-wing nuts demanding “teach the controversy” or some other crap, I wince because they are doing our faith great harm.

Christianity’s great value – and it is substantial, if done right – is spiritual. Evolution tells a fantastic story: I call it God’s finest hour. I pity the Christians who cannot, or will not, see this. And I measure the shallowness of their faith by their reluctance to face this.

Well said sir. Well said indeed.

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

As we all know, appeal to popularity settles things.

Case in point. Shallow indeed.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/0[…]1063641.html

What’s concerning is that Nye represents an increasingly prevalent view among materialists

Once again conflating methodological materialism with philosophical materialism.

Scientists use methodological materialism/naturalism. Methodological naturalism simply does not comment one way or another about supernatural forces. It can neither support nor reject the supernatural. Methodological naturalism only says anything that might be supernatural is outside the realm of science. Methodological naturalism is used by scientists that are both theists and non-theists.

Methodological naturalism is different from the naturalism used by non-theists outside of science which is philosophical naturalism (the unscientific belief that there is absolutely no supernatural).

– one that hopes to restrict freedom of expression for skeptics of Darwinian evolution.

This is rich, considering how both Evolution News and Views and Uncommon Descent are often reluctant to allow outside comments. But when they do allow comments and the heat gets to be too much, they close comments or ban opposition posters by the boatload.

And I’m not just talking about the standard NCSE-style intolerance which opposes teaching about scientific views that challenge Darwinism in schools.

Well, if anti-evolution ‘scientists’ finally start producing real scientific evidence, finally start routinely publishing this scientific evidence in mainstream science peer-review journals, finally start routinely showing up at mainstream science conferences with their evidence, and if per chance these ‘scientists’ persuade much of the current scientific consensus, anti-evolution views could rather automatically supplement or even replace evolution.

But unless this happens, views that have not earned a consensus from the scientific community don’t deserve a free ride into science class rooms. Heck, more moderate Christian schools often have robust teaching of evolution in their science classes.

I’m talking about Nye’s unwillingness to endorse parents’ rights to inculcate in their own children their doubts about Darwin. It’s scary to think what the world would look like if these people had their way.

Poppycock. When I was growing up a YEC, both my family and my fundamentalist churches were more than free to teach me loads and loads of anti-evolutionism.

Meanwhile, many in the scientific community continues to criticize the Darwinian paradigm.

Michael Behe himself admitted on cross-examination during the 2005 Dover trial to agreeing with this statement…“There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.…”

In McLean vs Arkansas (1982), so-called ‘creation scientists’ submitted no court evidence of ‘creation science’ papers that had been rejected by mainstream science peer-reviewed journals. It was so bad for creationists (the defendants), even a defense expert witness proclaimed under oath that no rational scientist accepts a world flood and a young-earth!

Robert Byers The Liar Lied:

Yet the modern threat to the old establishment has been done by tiny numbers of ID and YEC movers and shakers. It just proves to us how soft the empire is.

Then how come there is not a single peer-reviewed article by a single Young Earth Creationist or Intelligent Design proponent about any experiment or even a single calculation about Young Earth Creationism or Intelligent Design?

Oh, wait, you’re just lying to somehow magically impress us.

Happy Darwin Day? By: Jonathan Wells The Washington Times February 12, 2009

…Unfortunately, once in power Darwinism (like Marxism) tolerates no dissent. As the 2008 movie “Expelled” documented, scientists and teachers who criticize Darwinism risk ostracism, character assassination and termination of their employment. School boards that encourage students to learn the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolutionary theory are besieged by militant atheists who do not want students to question Darwinism.

Casey Luskin:

Meanwhile, many in the scientific community continues to criticize the Darwinian paradigm.

(uh, yeah, dishonest idiot, that’s why evolutionary theory isn’t properly called “Darwinian”)

Gee, who’s writing opposite to the truth, at least while being capable of knowing the truth? Luskin or Wells?

Well, what a shock, they can’t keep their dishonesty straight and consistent. Tangled webs and all, nothing new, of course.

Glen Davidson

Tenncrain said:

Once again conflating methodological materialism with philosophical materialism.

Scientists use methodological materialism/naturalism. Methodological naturalism simply does not comment one way or another about supernatural forces. It can neither support nor reject the supernatural. Methodological naturalism only says anything that might be supernatural is outside the realm of science. Methodological naturalism is used by scientists that are both theists and non-theists.

Methodological naturalism is different from the naturalism used by non-theists outside of science which is philosophical naturalism (the unscientific belief that there is absolutely no supernatural).

It seems to me that the one-inch cube of hard intergalactic vacuum containing all known evidence for the supernatural is small enough and empty enough to justify the conclusion that the supernatural doesn’t exist at all.

If you care to address that issue, I’m interested, and the Bathroom Wall is the place for it.

And just to show that hamsters can’t keep their (intellectual anyway) dishonesty straight in their own minds, here’s Luskin contradicting his blather that “Meanwhile, many in the scientific community continues to criticize the Darwinian paradigm.”:

The Story the New York Times found was Unfit to Print Casey Luskin September 28, 2007 11:55 AM | Permalink

Yesterday Rob Crowther recognized that Cornelia Dean and the New York Times are puffing Darwinism in an article about Expelled titled, “Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life’s Origin.” This front page New York Times news-article blatantly editorializes that, “[t]here is no credible scientific challenge to the idea that evolution explains the diversity of life on earth.” But that isn’t the real story here. If Cornelia Dean and the New York Times were to report the real story, they would have instead reported: “There is no credible scientific challenge to the idea that evolution explains the diversity of life on earth that goes unpunished.

Or are these “dissenters” routinely being punished? Whatever, substanceless false claims don’t need reconciliation with similar tripe, let alone with reality.

Glen Davidson

Looks like Ken Ham has gotten a reply to Bill Nye up.

Forgive me if I don’t like directly to his video, but I figured you’d all appreciate a skeptical view of his rambling. Besides, the Sensuous Curmudgeon has a link to Ham’s video himself.

I’ll not that this is not the first time that AIG has taken a shot at Bill Nye. And that bastard Ham complains about “ad-hom” attacks?

Speaking of cartoons, anyone remember this? Sadly, most of the cartoons have been taken down, but fortunately, there is one site that stored some of them.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmg[…]X_Zhn8#57cad said:

Yes, that was an odd remark about engineers. Indeed, the fact that engineers tend to operate quite the opposite of evolution, rationally and with intent, means that an all-too-high fraction of engineers are creationists of some sort. Surely all function involves “hammers and nails”…

So I can’t say that engineers need to know evolution for their jobs. But to keep from confusing what they make with what we find in life, they do need to know that life is different and why it is.

Glen Davidson

I would like to know where this data on engineers being creationists comes from. I’ve been an engineer for over 30 years. I’ve worked with hundreds of engineers across three different companies, and in all that time and population, I’ve known exactly 2 that are YECs (I currently share an office with one of them). Of the engineers I currently work with at least half are atheists. Except for the 2 YECs, I’ve not known any others that would deny evolution. I will grant you that most do not understand it, but neither does the general public.

Nye is just engaging in pure propaganda. It is clear that ID has no negative ramifications for kid’s science education.

He, like Flint would like to replace religion with science as the explainer of explanations.

But ironically, to do so, he will need to co-opt all the religious bells and whistles to make any headway.

Just ask the NSCE.

Just Bob said:

Cool. If “certain people” don’t mind being in a group that disproportionately includes creationists, climate change denialists, and racists, then that’s their prerogative. Oh, and gun fetishists.

I don’t think MIT climatologist Kerry Emanuel would lose any sleep over your observation, but I must commend his ongoing quixotic quest in trying to educate Republican Party leadership on recognizing the reality of global warming. There are others like us out there too, hoping to change the Republican Party back to what Science Debate co-founder Shawn Otto has described in his book “Fool Me Twice”, as the American political party that was the pro-science party from the Civil War to the 1950s.

Good luck. Seriously.

In other news, I seek to convince water that it should boil at 130 C

https://me.yahoo.com/a/KirCgV93wJhL[…]I4xKqx#26847 said:

In other news, I seek to convince water that it should boil at 130 C

Hell, that’s easy. Do it in a very strong airtight vessel.

Now try persuading the RNC to disavow all the creationists, science denialists, and racists that are its “base”. Oh, and gun fetishists.

Or just increase the air pressure; that can raise the boiling point up to some upper limit value.

In the light of the debunking of “Junk DNA”, it is imperative that children are not taught other myths like “vestigial traits” or “transitional forms”.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Matt Young published on August 29, 2012 12:35 PM.

Freshwater: His Ohio Supreme Court Merit Brief filed was the previous entry in this blog.

Sequencing the Denisovan genome 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 4.381

Site Meter