Evolution education in evangelicals’ home schooling

| 218 Comments

The Atlantic has an interesting story on evangelical Christian home-schoolers who prefer using science teaching materials that present genuine science rather than the creationist crap that infests home-school “science” curricula like those from Answers in Genesis or A Beka Book. I was struck by this quotation from one of the home-schooling mothers:

The assertion that anyone who believes in evolution “disregards” the Bible offends many evangelicals who want their children to be well-versed in modern science. Jen Baird Seurkamp, an evangelical who homeschools her children, avoids textbooks that discredit evolution. “Our science curriculum is one currently used in public schools,” she says. “We want our children to be educated, not sheltered from things we are afraid of them learning.”

Contrast that intellectual courage with the fundamentalist Christian supporter of John Freshwater I talked with some years ago:

I also spoke with one of Freshwater’s adult supporters. The No True Scotsman fallacy was alive and well in that conversation. There was an enlightening moment when I recommended that he read Francis Collins’ The Language of God to get an idea of how an evangelical Christian who is a scientist tries to deal with the conflict. The man asked if Collins accepts Genesis. I replied that Collins is an evangelical Christian, but that he doesn’t read Genesis literally and believes that evolution is the means by which God created the diversity of biological life. The man then refused to consider reading it, saying “I don’t need to look at beliefs I don’t agree with.” That level of willful ignorance pretty much says it all.

I hope that Ms. Seurkamp is aware of Dennis Venema’s series of posts introducing evolution at BioLogos (click “Next post in series” at the bottom of each OP to step through the posts now up, or go here for all of Venema’s posts).

218 Comments

One of the major issues in learning science, or, really, any good investigative practice, is learning not to fool yourself.

And that possibility (though not acknowledged as such) is one of the greatest threats that many fundamentalists can imagine.

Glen Davidson

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

One of the major issues in learning science, or, really, any good investigative practice, is learning not to fool yourself.

And that possibility (though not acknowledged as such) is one of the greatest threats that many fundamentalists can imagine.

Glen Davidson

If the Unamiginably Dense website is any indication, ID/creationists not only continue to fool themselves with gut-busting, teeth-gritting, head-exploding tenacity; they actually accuse the science community of doing exactly what they, the ID/creationists, are doing.

It takes a lot of chutzpa to engage in such atrocious behavior and then accuse others of doing exactly what you yourself are doing.

Listen to an ID/creationist rant about their “enemies” and you will learn all about the inner lives and “morality” of ID/creationists. They are telling you about themselves.

As someone who cares about civil rights, science education, and use of sound science rather that ideological propaganda to guide social policy, I am extremely glad to hear of this trend.

Let’s hope that such “enlightened” evangelicals are doing the same with American history.

Mike Elzinga said:

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

One of the major issues in learning science, or, really, any good investigative practice, is learning not to fool yourself.

And that possibility (though not acknowledged as such) is one of the greatest threats that many fundamentalists can imagine.

Glen Davidson

If the Unamiginably Dense website is any indication, ID/creationists not only continue to fool themselves with gut-busting, teeth-gritting, head-exploding tenacity; they actually accuse the science community of doing exactly what they, the ID/creationists, are doing.

It takes a lot of chutzpa to engage in such atrocious behavior and then accuse others of doing exactly what you yourself are doing.

Listen to an ID/creationist rant about their “enemies” and you will learn all about the inner lives and “morality” of ID/creationists. They are telling you about themselves.

One can generally bet heavily on the following.

Those who most frequently and loudly accuse others of lying are habitual if not compulsive liars. They assume, perhaps subconsciously, that their behavior is normal and that everyone lies as much as they do or that they are in fact more honest than others.

But we are most decidedly not a bunch of psychotic apes. No siree bub.

*eyeroll*

Rikki_Tikki_Taalik said:

One can generally bet heavily on the following.

Those who most frequently and loudly accuse others of lying are habitual if not compulsive liars. They assume, perhaps subconsciously, that their behavior is normal and that everyone lies as much as they do or that they are in fact more honest than others.

But we are most decidedly not a bunch of psychotic apes. No siree bub.

*eyeroll*

I should qualify that as “frequently and loudly accuse others of lying without demonstrable basis.”

It’s nice to be reminded that evangelical ≠ fundamentalist.

Chris Lawson said:

It’s nice to be reminded that evangelical ≠ fundamentalist.

On the Duane Gish thread I mentioned that Gish non-coincidentally blossomed as a confrontational, political, and ultimately professional creationist during the Nixon-era dawn of the current American right wing. Gish was well into middle age at the time. Remember, he died at 92.

It’s critical to remember that creationism represents part of a backlash, not so much against secularism, as they claim, but against the “liberal religion” ecumenical consensus of the civil rights era.

The fact that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated in exactly 1968 is a coincidence. The fact that he was assassinated at that approximate time is not.

We’ve all probably noticed that the creationists who comment here are absolutely obsessed with equating evolution with atheism.

I’m not religious; I was raised in an evangelical and austere but non-traumatizing, pro-education tradition. I gave up religion involuntarily because I didn’t find the supernatural claims convincing. I’m so not religious, I tried to be religious and failed. It’s easy to dismiss evangelicals who also accept basic scientific reality as not that big of a deal. “They still believe in a lot of trivially non-disrprovable but unjustified claims”, some are no doubt tempted to say. Many of them probably still hold right wing social views on issues like gay marriage and contraception.

It may not be a big deal from a theological or philosophical perspective. Socially and politically, it is a big deal.

The religious right was/is an authoritarian movement aimed at corralling those who have an emotional desire for the Christian experience, to force them to believe that they have to choose between straw man atheism, or accepting the whole right wing platform. That was new. No-one ever accused eighteenth century Quakers of not being austere or religious enough, even though they often opposed slavery and massacring Amerindians. Successfully promoting the idea that to be a “real Christian”, you have to kowtow to a billionaire-run social/political movement that is pro-violence and against basic public goods was a stunning achievement.

Any rebellion against that by believers, however incremental, is good.

Chris Lawson said:

It’s nice to be reminded that evangelical ≠ fundamentalist.

…which is why I use the portmanteau “fundagelical” to describe the actively anti-evolution/anti-science crowd - most of them are fundamentalists and most of them are evangelicals.

Paul Burnett said:

Chris Lawson said:

It’s nice to be reminded that evangelical ≠ fundamentalist.

…which is why I use the portmanteau “fundagelical” to describe the actively anti-evolution/anti-science crowd - most of them are fundamentalists and most of them are evangelicals.

Rats…I hit Enter too soon.

Here’s the Urban Dictionary definition of Fundagelical: Someone who believes in a totalitarian world rule with an American Christo-theocratic party dictating legislation based on limited interpretation of scripture they consider applicable. Applicable scripture is limited to scripture in which they personally are willing to impose on others regardless of whether they, themselves, personally adhere to it in private. Derived from a contraction of the words Fundamentalist and Evangelical. James Dobson, Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps are leaders in the fundagelical movement.

And none of them are “fun” ,

Paul Burnett said:

Paul Burnett said:

Chris Lawson said:

It’s nice to be reminded that evangelical ≠ fundamentalist.

…which is why I use the portmanteau “fundagelical” to describe the actively anti-evolution/anti-science crowd - most of them are fundamentalists and most of them are evangelicals.

Rats…I hit Enter too soon.

Here’s the Urban Dictionary definition of Fundagelical: Someone who believes in a totalitarian world rule with an American Christo-theocratic party dictating legislation based on limited interpretation of scripture they consider applicable. Applicable scripture is limited to scripture in which they personally are willing to impose on others regardless of whether they, themselves, personally adhere to it in private. Derived from a contraction of the words Fundamentalist and Evangelical. James Dobson, Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps are leaders in the fundagelical movement.

.…James Dobson, Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps are leaders in the fundagelical movement.

So rich it makes my teeth hurt!

Paul Burnett said:

Here’s the Urban Dictionary definition of Fundagelical:

Al in all, an insightful definition.

Particularly this part… “ Applicable scripture is limited to scripture in which they personally are willing to impose on others regardless of whether they, themselves, personally adhere to it in private. “ … which, in my humble opinion, has always been the most irritating characteristic of their ilk.

First, a shout-out to David Montgomery and his book “The Rocks Don’t Lie”, which is mentioned in the Atlantic article. I am reading Chapter 3 of Montgomery’s book (so far) and I recommend it.

With Richard’s permission I am going to extend the thread beyond Evangelical home-schooling to science teaching in private Christian schools. There is issue overlap between the two.

1. In David Kinnaman’s book “You Lost Me”, he emphasizes that young people today have unprecedented access to a myriad of viewpoints through the Internet, YouTube, and whatever their friends text to them (p. 135). Although they can find lots of creationist sites, their teachers and parents can no longer insulate them from mainstream science. The Discovery channel and even Mythbusters expose them to popular science, which is fascinating and fun. I think the students themselves are pushing back against creationism, or at least rolling their eyes at some of the more egregious nonsense.

2. Home schooling takes a lot of commitment on the part of the parents. Private school tuition can be around $1,000 per month (see Village Christian School and Minnehaha Academy). For that kind of involvement and expense, fewer Evangelical parents want their kids to see drawings of humans riding a Triceratops. They want to get their time and money’s worth and have their kids receive a good education in return.

3. I am sure that some students of creationism will swallow it all and be unable to attend a birthday party without making some derogatory comment about evolution. Other Christian students are more critical in their thinking (see point #1), and they get tired of hearing how every little factlet in their Bob Jones textbook “disproves evolution.” Why is there suddenly a need for a verse from Psalms right in the middle of this discussion about earthquakes?

4. A particularly sad result is that creationism cheats the kids, whether that creationism comes from home-schooling or from a private Christian school. I have never seen a creationist presentation that does not convey the unmistakable message: Science Is Bad. Yes, some of them claim to honor science, but they really don’t. The students quickly learn that Science class has to have a bunch of disclaimers, and controversy, and warning labels, and Bible verses inexplicably punctuating the text. What is lost is that excitement they first felt upon seeing that rocket shoot into the air, or watching a Rotifer under a microscope, or coming downstairs on the morning after Christmas to see that the crystals in their solution really are forming!

5. In a weak economy, where Mom’s and Dad’s jobs may be shaky every day, parents don’t want to raise a set of unemployable offspring. This is not a game: our children have to learn real science in order to become the engineers and researchers of tomorrow.

There’s some statistics here: http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=91. This is the National Center for Education Statistics, which is a Federal Government agency, and I take their figures to be accurate.

The facts that leaped out is that the incidence of home schooling is increasing, having nearly doubled in fifteen years, and at least 1.5 million students in the US now are home-schooled; and that 36% of parents who choose to home school their children give “religious reasons” as the cause, and that this was the most common reason, ahead of dissatisfaction with the education provided by the public schools. Both of those numbers are increasing. Another statistic is that a higher proportion of white students are home schooled than black or Hispanic students.

I think that there’s some evidence for an emerging “two nations” dichotomy here. Add in the private and charter schools, as Carl Drews says, and that’s something to worry about.

I think that there’s some evidence for an emerging “two nations” dichotomy here. Add in the private and charter schools, as Carl Drews says, and that’s something to worry about.

Seems like you got a headache there that will need something a little stronger than Paracetamol.

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

One of the major issues in learning science, or, really, any good investigative practice, is learning not to fool yourself.

And that possibility (though not acknowledged as such) is one of the greatest threats that many fundamentalists can imagine.

Glen Davidson

To avoid or deny reality may appear like the lesser of two evils.

Carl Drews said:

4. A particularly sad result is that creationism cheats the kids, whether that creationism comes from home-schooling or from a private Christian school. I have never seen a creationist presentation that does not convey the unmistakable message: Science Is Bad. Yes, some of them claim to honor science, but they really don’t. The students quickly learn that Science class has to have a bunch of disclaimers, and controversy, and warning labels, and Bible verses inexplicably punctuating the text. What is lost is that excitement they first felt upon seeing that rocket shoot into the air, or watching a Rotifer under a microscope, or coming downstairs on the morning after Christmas to see that the crystals in their solution really are forming!

5. In a weak economy, where Mom’s and Dad’s jobs may be shaky every day, parents don’t want to raise a set of unemployable offspring. This is not a game: our children have to learn real science in order to become the engineers and researchers of tomorrow.

Good point. Home schooling, especially with the intent of denigrating science and substituting religious propaganda, will tend to turn kids off to all science, not just the parts the parents find objectionable. It’s hard enough to get kids interested in science and to get them to see the relevance of science in their live without having to fight this up hill battle.

And of courser, even if the parents want to teach their kids good science, how many are equipped to do so, especially if they themselves were home schooled? And how many of them are sufficiently knowledgable in evolutionary science, even at the elementary level? They might just skip that chapter, same as some public school teachers.

You can’t trust science:

James Hoeffgen redirect examination

Millstone asked James if he reached any conclusion, then or later, about what Freshwater was doing in his teaching of evolution. James replied that his parents were upset about Freshwater’s use of Survival of the Fakest, about Freshwater’s claims of the inaccuracy of carbon dating, about the Hovind video, and about the notion that dinosaurs and humans were on earth together.

Millstone asked James what he concluded from Freshwater’s teaching. James replied with an anecdote. He said his sister had found a rock and was going to take it to a teacher to see if she could find out how old it is. James said he told his sister to not bother, “Science can’t be trusted. Science can’t teach us anything.”

That’s a direct quote, immediately checked with an attorney who was also taking notes.

And it says it all.

First many Evangelicals home school to AVOID liberal propaganda and include creationism. your saying they exclude evolution. They don’t. Its about equal time. One must include to be sure of test results. Usually its the upper middle class people who have the confidence to homeschool and its producing confident creationist kids. Its kids in “public’ education getting one side and denied the truth of public contention on origin issues./ Place your bets on the future!

Please, please don’t feed the troll. I’ll leave Byers’ one comment up, at least for the time being, but please merely gaze upon it in wonder at the disconnect from reality.

it seems to me that an interested parent could pull together an adequite curriculum if they are willing to put in the effort- they might be learning along with thier children as much as they are teaching them - IMHO this would be a feature, not a bug.

I hope that some of those 1.5 million home schoolers have opted out of the available public program becuase they want to give thier kids a BETTER education than what is locally available - I know that if I lived in a community where the likes of Freshwater was the norm and not the exception, I’d seriously consider home-schooling (or moving)

a quick google search finds several science curricula for home schoolers that appear to be free of religious propoganda

unfortunately, many do home school in order to avoid teaching science and evolution to their children. This is especially problematic in places like Kansas where they actually changed the standards on standardized tests for home schools in order to exclude macro evolution. It then becomes obvious exactly what the motivation was for home schooling in the first place.

DS said:

unfortunately, many do home school in order to avoid teaching science and evolution to their children. This is especially problematic in places like Kansas where they actually changed the standards on standardized tests for home schools in order to exclude macro evolution. It then becomes obvious exactly what the motivation was for home schooling in the first place.

I am gobsmacked - they changed the test?! be ignorant if you want - but don’t ask me to change reality to fit your ignorance! (to KS homeschoolers)

I guess they don’t expect thier kids to go to university? does KU accept these students-? they still would need to learn actual science in some measure to get a degree in many fields- agriculture included

I wonder if Kansas students know where corn comes from?

What proportion of standardized test questions typically relate to Evolution? Is it a significant proportion? Could a student fail to answer any of them and still easily pass the test?

My hypothesis is: Evolution can safely be omitted from home-schooling curricula with little fear of significantly affecting test results.

gnome de net said:

What proportion of standardized test questions typically relate to Evolution? Is it a significant proportion? Could a student fail to answer any of them and still easily pass the test?

My hypothesis is: Evolution can safely be omitted from home-schooling curricula with little fear of significantly affecting test results.

This is clearly true. The main problem with creationist books is not that they teach purely descriptive biology without evolution, which would be very suboptimal but only mildly damaging. Due to disruptions in my high school education, I never covered evolution properly until university. (I ultimately did well in university and went on to medical school but I don’t recommend the approach of showing up deficient and scrambling to catch up to anyone, if they can help it.)

However -

1) Creationist books don’t just ignore evolution, they contain inaccurate statements about evolution and promote creationism as science. It’s one thing not to be taught at all, and a far worse thing to be taught incorrectly. I was raised in an austere and evangelical but liberal and tolerant tradition, which I don’t follow any more due to personal lack of faith in gods, not due to objectionable ethical elements. Education was encouraged and it was not my mother’s fault that we went through very hard times during my high school years. No-one ever suggested to me that scientists were wrong about science.

2) Creationist students from private schools that use creationist books have had their science credits denied by state universities, and this has stood up in court. My family wanted me to have a good education and would have been delighted if I had excelled in high school science and gotten a scholarship, but various crises got in the way. However, when I got to university I was able to adjust. These kids who had their credits denied came from families who, far from being unable to provide stable enough structure to allow full achievement in public school, paid plenty of money to send their kids to private school.

It seems that even most Christians in the United States are willing to recognize the fraud and bigotry in Creationist propaganda and reject it.

harold said:

Creationist books don’t just ignore evolution, they contain inaccurate statements about evolution and promote creationism as science. It’s one thing not to be taught at all, and a far worse thing to be taught incorrectly.

I have seen such contemptible books in Christian bookstores. I do wish the laws against fraud would be consistently enforced, because then we could file numerous lawsuits against Creationist groups to drive them into bankruptcy and even get their leaders arrested and jailed.

gnome de net said:

What proportion of standardized test questions typically relate to Evolution? Is it a significant proportion? Could a student fail to answer any of them and still easily pass the test?

My hypothesis is: Evolution can safely be omitted from home-schooling curricula with little fear of significantly affecting test results.

It greatly depends on the test and the client. Some states (not mentioning any names here) have specifically said that we don’t use the ‘e’-word. That being said, we sometimes sneak in items about adaptation and the like.

Some states and other clients have pretty good evolution standards and are rigorously tested. Many states that you don’t expect actually have good evolution standards. Texas used to, I don’t teach in Texas anymore and I don’t work on the Texas tests, so I’m not sure of the current status of the standards.

Most states will be heading for the Next Generation Science Standards as soon as they are finalized and they look pretty good (not great, but better than most) in terms of evolution.

As far as could a student fail all the evolution items and pass the test. Yes, definitely. The client I’m working with right now is testing 28 science skills across about 36 content topics… using only 36 questions. We haven’t set the cut scores yet (what’s passing or not), but I suspect that testers who get something like 60-75% of the items correct will pass. Which means, that they could miss every question in a practice or content area (like Earth Science) and still pass the test.

Needless to say, nothing is covered very deeply. I would never be prepared to say that a tester has a high level of science knowledge based on only 36 questions. And few state tests have many more science questions than that. The most I’ve ever seen on a science test for biology is 62 items.

IIRC, that test had about 5 questions relating to evolution, selection, adaptation, etc. Which is, by far, the most on any test I’ve seen.

Working in the assessment industry, there are certain states that I will never, ever move to based purely on how they treat science and science standards.

I hope that helps.

Seriously, Ray Martinez, why should we consider you as something other than an annoying internet troll pretending to be a Bigot for Jesus? You don’t write any screeds beyond your ranting posts, you don’t try and fail to get your inanity published in journals, you demonstrate a total ignorance of science fueled by a total apathy to learning. So, why should we take you seriously?

Mr. Fink said:

Seriously, Ray Martinez, why should we consider you as something other than an annoying internet troll pretending to be a Bigot for Jesus? You don’t write any screeds beyond your ranting posts, you don’t try and fail to get your inanity published in journals, you demonstrate a total ignorance of science fueled by a total apathy to learning. So, why should we take you seriously?

He does this on Talk.origins. Be kind, loving, sympathetic, just don’t respond this charlatan, he’ll just want to do it more.

Ray Martinez said:

apokryltaros said:

Idiot babbled:

apokryltaros said:

.…Ray Martinez is an idiot troll who’s trying to pretend to be the most bigoted Creationist idiot in the whole wide world, in a perennially futile attempt to shock us.

The anger seen above is all because I point out, periodically, that credentialed Creationists and IDists, and non-credentialed Creationists and IDists, both accept Darwin’s main conceptual and theoretical claim (fully material natural selection/species mutability). In this context I then ask how can these persons be considered Creationists, IDists, or anti-evolutionists?

Because they deny evolution for religious reasons, dumbshit.

Again, said “Creationists” and “IDists” accept Darwin’s MAIN conceptual claim (natural selection/species mutability) to exist in nature. They do NOT deny evolution. The YEC Fundies and DI-IDiots are in Darwin’s and Dawkins’s bed. In short, the persons who you hate the most are nonetheless in your camp, not mine. This explains the anger and profanity seen in your reply above.

Too bad for you that natural selection AND species mutability do indeed exist in nature.

Which is why most people accept the FACT that they exist; creationuts, IDiots and theoloons then claim the evidence means nothing (ie, ‘reality-based processes CAN’T explain X !! ** I ** can’t/won’t see how known real-world processes can generate a Y !! Therefore, Magical Sky Pixie, God, ‘Unnamed Intelligent Designer DIDIT !!!!!’)

Creationuts, IDiots and theoloons do indeed deny evolution - with every howling fiber of their being. They know just enough about real world evidence to misrepresent it and lie about it (by tossing in some science, they think their blithering idiocies sound more valid.)

They have to - since they have no convincing evidence FOR creationutism, they assume (much like you) that if they can just say enough bad things about evolution often enough, loudly enough, their silly-arsed ‘alternative’ will magically become believable.

As apokryltaros pointed out - creationuts, IDiots and theoloons reject evolution for religious reasons (ie, ‘reality does not conform to MY interpretation of ancient morality tales, so it MUST be wrong !!!!!!’)

It seems that my argument above really bothers Apokryltaros (an Atheist-Evolutionist).

I’m a Christian, and you’re a lying idiot.

Both Dembski and Ken Ham claim to be Christians as well. My only point: both you and them are in bed with Darwin and Dawkins.

RiiIIiiIIiiIIGHT !

Dembski’s WHOLE ROUTINE was whining that ‘EVOLUTION CANNOT EXPLAIN X BECAUSE ** I ** CLAIM IT IS FAR TOO IMPROBABLE; THEREFORE, DESIGNERDIDIT !!!!’

He once stated that ID was just the Logos theology of the Gospel of John reinterpreted into information theoretic form - does THAT sound like something an atheist would do ? Or someone that supports evolution ?

Ham’s whole routine was screaming about how wrong and evil evolution is (then lying about it and misrepresenting it at every turn) - not something that someone who believes in it would do.

But, then again, you are deranged enough to ‘think’ that species are immutable and that natural selection doesn’t exist.

Ray goes for the Royal Bluff :

We believe Darwin and Dawkins are real Atheists. Objective thinkers know that real Christians do not lie on their backs while in bed with Atheists. Since no God exists Atheists MUST believe in the concept of evolution to explain the existence of species, unlike Christians. You’re in the worst possible position and predicament. That said, I am quite relieved to be thought of as a “lying idiot” by a person like yourself.

Ray (Christian; anti-selectionist/species immutabilist)

You speak for no one but yourself, Ray. No one is foolish enough to buy your silly use of the pompous ‘we’.

If you represent what a True Christian is, it is no wonder that people are abandoning the faith in droves.

Again, twit : selection has been observed to happen in the real world; by claiming it doesn’t exist, you bring your faith to ridicule and scorn (not that your willful idiocy and belligerence don’t do a much better job).

Again, simpleton : that species are mutable has been known for quite some time.

I HAVE MUTATED SPECIES MYSELF. As has anyone in the fields of molecular biology and developmental biology and evo-devo; by claiming that species are immutable, you show yourself to be completely ignorant of centuries of real world observations.

apokryltaros said:

Fake Bigot For Jesus lied:

apokryltaros said:

Idiot babbled:

apokryltaros said:

.…Ray Martinez is an idiot troll who’s trying to pretend to be the most bigoted Creationist idiot in the whole wide world, in a perennially futile attempt to shock us.

The anger seen above is all because I point out, periodically, that credentialed Creationists and IDists, and non-credentialed Creationists and IDists, both accept Darwin’s main conceptual and theoretical claim (fully material natural selection/species mutability). In this context I then ask how can these persons be considered Creationists, IDists, or anti-evolutionists?

Because they deny evolution for religious reasons, dumbshit.

Again, said “Creationists” and “IDists” accept Darwin’s MAIN conceptual claim (natural selection/species mutability) to exist in nature. They do NOT deny evolution. The YEC Fundies and DI-IDiots are in Darwin’s and Dawkins’s bed.

Then how come you don’t accuse your fellow trolls, FL and SteveP of being apostate collaborators?

Because I’ve never happened upon the right occasion to confront them with their “argue vehemently against evolution while accepting Darwin’s main claim” contradiction.

In response to pointing out the egregious contradiction that you are living, that is, a “Christian” who stands with Atheists against the Biblical explanation, you spew profanity and slander. In other words you become unglued as seen in just about every post you make in response to an opponent.

The Atheists don’t repsect you, to them you’re nothing but a buffoon doing their bidding. And you’re all too happy to play that role.

Speaking of buffoons, Ray, you yourself look pretty silly with all your gods and demigods and debbils and dibuks and djinns and angels and spirits.

Still no evidence, huh Ray. Nothing but hot air.

Ray Martinez said:

apokryltaros said:

Fake Bigot For Jesus lied:

apokryltaros said:

Idiot babbled:

apokryltaros said:

.…Ray Martinez is an idiot troll who’s trying to pretend to be the most bigoted Creationist idiot in the whole wide world, in a perennially futile attempt to shock us.

The anger seen above is all because I point out, periodically, that credentialed Creationists and IDists, and non-credentialed Creationists and IDists, both accept Darwin’s main conceptual and theoretical claim (fully material natural selection/species mutability). In this context I then ask how can these persons be considered Creationists, IDists, or anti-evolutionists?

Because they deny evolution for religious reasons, dumbshit.

Again, said “Creationists” and “IDists” accept Darwin’s MAIN conceptual claim (natural selection/species mutability) to exist in nature. They do NOT deny evolution. The YEC Fundies and DI-IDiots are in Darwin’s and Dawkins’s bed.

Then how come you don’t accuse your fellow trolls, FL and SteveP of being apostate collaborators?

Because I’ve never happened upon the right occasion to confront them with their “argue vehemently against evolution while accepting Darwin’s main claim” contradiction.

In response to pointing out the egregious contradiction that you are living, that is, a “Christian” who stands with Atheists against the Biblical explanation, you spew profanity and slander. In other words you become unglued as seen in just about every post you make in response to an opponent.

The Atheists don’t repsect you, to them you’re nothing but a buffoon doing their bidding. And you’re all too happy to play that role.

PA Poland said:

Ray Martinez said:

apokryltaros said:

Idiot babbled:

apokryltaros said:

.…Ray Martinez is an idiot troll who’s trying to pretend to be the most bigoted Creationist idiot in the whole wide world, in a perennially futile attempt to shock us.

The anger seen above is all because I point out, periodically, that credentialed Creationists and IDists, and non-credentialed Creationists and IDists, both accept Darwin’s main conceptual and theoretical claim (fully material natural selection/species mutability). In this context I then ask how can these persons be considered Creationists, IDists, or anti-evolutionists?

Because they deny evolution for religious reasons, dumbshit.

Again, said “Creationists” and “IDists” accept Darwin’s MAIN conceptual claim (natural selection/species mutability) to exist in nature. They do NOT deny evolution. The YEC Fundies and DI-IDiots are in Darwin’s and Dawkins’s bed. In short, the persons who you hate the most are nonetheless in your camp, not mine. This explains the anger and profanity seen in your reply above.

Too bad for you that natural selection AND species mutability do indeed exist in nature.

Except in your collective imagination, neither have any existence.

Which is why most people accept the FACT that they exist; creationuts, IDiots and theoloons then claim the evidence means nothing (ie, ‘reality-based processes CAN’T explain X !! ** I ** can’t/won’t see how known real-world processes can generate a Y !! Therefore, Magical Sky Pixie, God, ‘Unnamed Intelligent Designer DIDIT !!!!!’)

You’re claiming said persons really do not accept conceptual existence of natural selection and microevolution. This is not true. What they don’t accept is unrestricted macroevolution and common descent (except in the case of Michael Behe).

Dembski’s WHOLE ROUTINE was whining that ‘EVOLUTION CANNOT EXPLAIN X BECAUSE ** I ** CLAIM IT IS FAR TOO IMPROBABLE; THEREFORE, DESIGNERDIDIT !!!!’

He is only talking about certain information and ultra-complex bio-chemical systems, the same presupposes adaptive evolution to have accomplished the less complex.

He once stated that ID was just the Logos theology of the Gospel of John reinterpreted into information theoretic form - does THAT sound like something an atheist would do ? Or someone that supports evolution ?

Dembski readily accepts natural selection to have produced everything except certain ultra-complex phenomena.

Ham’s whole routine was screaming about how wrong and evil evolution is (then lying about it and misrepresenting it at every turn) - not something that someone who believes in it would do.

Ham accepts natural selection, microevolution and macroevolution within (not between) created kinds to explain new species.

Again, twit : selection has been observed to happen in the real world; by claiming it doesn’t exist, you bring your faith to ridicule and scorn (not that your willful idiocy and belligerence don’t do a much better job).

Again, simpleton : that species are mutable has been known for quite some time.

I HAVE MUTATED SPECIES MYSELF. As has anyone in the fields of molecular biology and developmental biology and evo-devo; by claiming that species are immutable, you show yourself to be completely ignorant of centuries of real world observations.

ALL evo scholars readily admit that evolution is NOT observed, but inferred after the alleged fact. The fact that you attempt to portray evolution as directly observed indicates that you cannot be trusted.

Ray Martinez said:

The fact that you attempt to portray evolution as directly observed indicates that you cannot be trusted.

Shit, Ray, you can’t tell trustworthy from tapioca pudding. You believe in the truth of a book of collected campfire tales from the early Iron Age! You believe in zombies, Ray.

You wouldn’t know truth if it bit your ear off.

Ray Martinez said:

PA Poland said:

Ray Martinez said:

apokryltaros said:

Idiot babbled:

apokryltaros said:

.…Ray Martinez is an idiot troll who’s trying to pretend to be the most bigoted Creationist idiot in the whole wide world, in a perennially futile attempt to shock us.

The anger seen above is all because I point out, periodically, that credentialed Creationists and IDists, and non-credentialed Creationists and IDists, both accept Darwin’s main conceptual and theoretical claim (fully material natural selection/species mutability). In this context I then ask how can these persons be considered Creationists, IDists, or anti-evolutionists?

Because they deny evolution for religious reasons, dumbshit.

Again, said “Creationists” and “IDists” accept Darwin’s MAIN conceptual claim (natural selection/species mutability) to exist in nature. They do NOT deny evolution. The YEC Fundies and DI-IDiots are in Darwin’s and Dawkins’s bed. In short, the persons who you hate the most are nonetheless in your camp, not mine. This explains the anger and profanity seen in your reply above.

Too bad for you that natural selection AND species mutability do indeed exist in nature.

Except in your collective imagination, neither have any existence.

Repeating that falsehood will never make it true Ray.

If species were truly IMMUTABLE, there would be no new variations arising.

Real world observations show that new variations arise in everything studied (from viruses to whales); so the claim that ‘species are immutable’ is quite stupid.

Some variations are better at living long enough to reproduce than others; those variants become more common in the population. This OBSERVATION OF REALITY is called ‘natural selection’. And has been observed.

Drug resistance in bacteria and viruses is due to mutation (castrating your idiotic ‘species are IMMUTABLE !!!’ drivel) AND selection. Herbicide resistance in plants is due to mutation and selection. Insecticide resistance in insects is due to mutation and selection. The ability for bacteria to digest novel substrates is due to mutation and natural selection.

The beaks of the Galapagos finches are from mutation and natural selection. The pelvic spines of stickleback fish are from mutation and selection (in marine environments, HAVING those spines is selected for; in fresh water environments, NOT having those spines is selected for). Even peppered moths demonstrated the phenomenon of natural selection.

There are hundreds of examples of natural selection known; in fact, you’d have to be some sort of willfully ignorant buffoon to claim ‘natural selection does not exist’.

Which is why most people accept the FACT that they exist; creationuts, IDiots and theoloons then claim the evidence means nothing (ie, ‘reality-based processes CAN’T explain X !! ** I ** can’t/won’t see how known real-world processes can generate a Y !! Therefore, Magical Sky Pixie, God, ‘Unnamed Intelligent Designer DIDIT !!!!!’)

You’re claiming said persons really do not accept conceptual existence of natural selection and microevolution. This is not true. What they don’t accept is unrestricted macroevolution and common descent (except in the case of Michael Behe).

Nope - they accept that it exists, but just enough to misunderstand and misrepresent it.

They merely accept more of REALITY than you do Ray (which really isn’t saying much … )

Dembski’s WHOLE ROUTINE was whining that ‘EVOLUTION CANNOT EXPLAIN X BECAUSE ** I ** CLAIM IT IS FAR TOO IMPROBABLE; THEREFORE, DESIGNERDIDIT !!!!’

He is only talking about certain information and ultra-complex bio-chemical systems, the same presupposes adaptive evolution to have accomplished the less complex.

Given the FACT that adaptive evolution has been OBSERVED to accomplish ‘less complex’ tasks, it requires no presupposition at all.

Just because an IDiot, creationut or theoloon CLAIMS ‘EVOLUTION CANNOT EXPLAIN THIS !!!’ doesn’t mean they are right; in fact, they are usually wrong.

He once stated that ID was just the Logos theology of the Gospel of John reinterpreted into information theoretic form - does THAT sound like something an atheist would do ? Or someone that supports evolution ?

Dembski readily accepts natural selection to have produced everything except certain ultra-complex phenomena.

In other words, he accepts more of reality than you do, which in your deranged ‘mind’ means he’s an “atheist”.

And his ‘ultra-complex phenomena’ are quite explainable by ACTUAL evolutionary processes (not the silly ‘fall together all at once purely by chance’ numerology he trafficks in).

Ham’s whole routine was screaming about how wrong and evil evolution is (then lying about it and misrepresenting it at every turn) - not something that someone who believes in it would do.

Ham accepts natural selection, microevolution and macroevolution within (not between) created kinds to explain new species.

Wow ! Even Ken Ham accepts more of reality than you do !

Your ‘True Christian’ ‘explanation’ of new species is what ?

Oh, right : “An unknowable Magical Sky Pixie ‘poofs !!1!!!!’ them into existence when no one is looking !!! It is merely an ASTOUNDING COINCIDENCE that new species are exceedingly similar to old species living in the area !!” ?

Again, twit : selection has been observed to happen in the real world; by claiming it doesn’t exist, you bring your faith to ridicule and scorn (not that your willful idiocy and belligerence don’t do a much better job).

Again, simpleton : that species are mutable has been known for quite some time.

I HAVE MUTATED SPECIES MYSELF. As has anyone in the fields of molecular biology and developmental biology and evo-devo; by claiming that species are immutable, you show yourself to be completely ignorant of centuries of real world observations.

ALL evo scholars readily admit that evolution is NOT observed, but inferred after the alleged fact. The fact that you attempt to portray evolution as directly observed indicates that you cannot be trusted.

‘Interesting’ dodge there Ray !

You CLAIMED that ‘species are IMMUTABLE’; I merely pointed out that you are full of dung, since I have mutated them myself. Were you correct, molecular biology would be impossible.

Oh, THAT’S RIGHT ! You’re a posturing twit ! You ‘think’ that intelligence somehow, magically overrides immutability ! Or something equally as baseless and silly !

Evolution has been observed directly - but theoloons like you merely close your eyes, clench your buttocks and scream “THAT DOESN’T COUNT BECAUSE I DON’T WANT IT TO !!!!”

Upon what basis did you ‘determine’ that known examples of evolution are ALLEGED FACTS and not actual facts ?

Oh, right : if REALITY conflicts with Ray’s interpretation of ancient superhero tales, reality is wrong !

Reality-based inferences are better than your fairy tales, since evolution makes testable predictions; all you’ve got is dementia and ignorance-based rationalizations.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Richard B. Hoppe published on March 9, 2013 11:51 AM.

Duane Gish dies was the previous entry in this blog.

Utah mesa 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 4.38

Site Meter