President of Ball State issues strong statement in favor of science education, deems ID creationism religious belief

| 83 Comments

Jo Ann Gora, the president of Ball State University, issued a strong statement in support of science and said flatly that intelligent-design creationism is a religious belief, according to an article in Inside Higher Ed. Ball State is the university that recently hired Guillermo Gonzalez, an astronomer who was denied tenure at Iowa State University and subsequently taught at a small sectarian college. Ball State University has also come under fire because one of its professors, Eric Hedin, has allegedly introduced religious material into his science classes.

According to Inside Higher Ed, President Gora stated,

Intelligent design is overwhelmingly deemed by the scientific community as a religious belief and not a scientific theory. Therefore, intelligent design is not appropriate content for science courses. The gravity of this issue and the level of concern among scientists are demonstrated by more than 80 national and state scientific societies’ independent statements that intelligent design and creation science do not qualify as science

and added,

… to allow intelligent design to be presented to science students as a valid scientific theory would violate the academic integrity of the course as it would fail to accurately represent the consensus of science scholars.

Ball State has further investigated Professor Hedin, and he is “working together [with the provost] to ensure that course content is aligned with the curriculum and best standards of the discipline,” which, I guess, is about as delicately as you could put it.

I cannot but applaud President Gora’s statement; the university appears to have handled a difficult situation admirably. The Discovery Institute has predictably called President Gora’s statement “Orwellian.”

Acknowledgment. A commenter known as Tenncrain brought the Inside Higher Ed article to my attention.

83 Comments

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

It’s like…she understands ID!

Glen Davidson

Robert Byers said: Insert authentic frontier gibberish here…

Please promise me their essays won’t be written the way yours are.

Robert Byers said: [emphasis added]

However hard deeming she is incompetent and attacking conclusions about origins because she says they are religious. So she is attacking religion and banning it in subjects about truth and so a official opinion they ain’t true. ID and YEC is not opinions based on religious conclusions but based on the evidence of nature and criticisms of opponents are based likewise. They are not based on bible verses. The point of organized ID and YEC is to base it on investigation and reason concerning evidence. The publicity for this serious issue is better then if quietly the prof had just talked to a few hundred kids who barely are listening. The immoral and illegal attack on this prof and creationisms and freedom will be heard by more people. Every school should be making decisions on the great revolution of modern creationism. We are living in special intellectual, moral, and legal times. Kids will be writing essays about these times in the future. Spell my name right kids.

Hi Robert,

Are you saying that “Answers In Genesis is not based on religious conclusions? That “YEC”, or “Young Earth Creationism”, which states that the universe was created by the Christian God ex nihilo exactly 6040 years ago based solely on the Christian Bible, is not based on religious conclusions? Do you know why they call it “Young Earth Creationism”? Do you know where Creationist got the date of creation from?

What part of “Bible” and “Christian” and “God” is not “religious”?

But on topic, it is very heartening to see the president of the University concerned about the reputation of the University. Clearly, she doesn’t want it reduced to a laughing stock, with the reputation of another “Liberty” University.

It’s also heartening that (as reported in the article), none of the people investigating the incident are the fool who hired Guillermo Gonzalez.

The question is not one of academic freedom, but one of academic integrity, she [President Jo Ann Gora] added. “Said simply, to allow intelligent design to be presented to science students as a valid scientific theory would violate the academic integrity of the course as it would fail to accurately represent the consensus of science scholars.”

She [Gora] cited the American Academy of Religion’s statement on the matter:

“Creation science, intelligent design, and other worldviews that focus on speculation regarding the origins of life represent another important and relevant form of human inquiry that is appropriately studied in literature and social science courses. Such study, however, must include a diversity of worldviews representing a variety of religious and philosophical perspectives and must avoid privileging one view as more legitimate than others.”

The [Freedom from Religion Foundation] said it did not object to the premise of the honors science seminar, described in the syllabus as an investigation of “physical reality and the boundaries of science for any hidden wisdom within this reality which may illuminate the central questions of the purpose of our existence and the meaning of life.” Rather, the organization said it objected to the course “as taught,” based on reports that Hedin was sharing his personal beliefs and endorsing a Christian viewpoint over others presented. As a public university, Ball State could be in violation of its obligation to separate church and state, the foundation said.

Very predictable move on Gora’s part. If she is not a card-carrying evolutionist herself (maybe she is), she knows about the harsh pressure that card-carrying evolutionists are capable of exerting, and she knows there are plenty of ‘em at Ball State and in the media.

So her statement is, well, predictable. C’est la vie.

However, I notice that professors Hedin and Gonzalez (and Gonzalez had already agreed not to teach ID at Ball State anyway!), are NOT fired and NOT resigned from Ball State.

Hence the ultimate victory is theirs, honestly.

****

Think about it. At this point in time, would Dr. Gonzalez actually need to offer cosmological ID classes at Ball State? Not at all. Not even slightly.

Why is that? Because any BSU science major, indeed any Ball State student of any major, who DIDN’T already know that Dr. Gonzalez is the co-author of the compelling and fascinating book The Privileged Planet, surely knows it now, thanks to all the evolutionist-driven publicity and controversy.

Wanna speculate that every bookstore in the Muncie region, and probably farther, will experience steady sales and orders for the TPP book this year? Plus Amazon, BN, and other online outlets? Plus many Ball State students simply googling the topic “ID” and “Gonzalez” and reading various articles thereof?

Can’t prove it, but things are sure looking that way.

****

So make no mistake: this is not Iowa State Redux.

Granted, Hedin and Gonzalez will not be teaching ID at Ball State. But their mere presence (esp. with all that publicity), will cause MANY Ball State students, both science majors and other majors, to give Gonzalez’s cosmological ID hypothesis (and likely the Dembski/Behe ID hypothesis) a fair hearing AS SCIENCE, on their own time and dime.

And there’s NOTHING that the evolutionists can do to stop that important outcome. Lo Siento, baby.

Therefore, if we start asking who won or lost this particular chess game (yes Keelyn I occasionally indulge), it’s at least clear that professors Hedin and Gonzalez won. (Certainly they didn’t win as big as some folks may have hoped, but a win IS a win.)

But if they won, then who lost? Hmm. Write down the conflict-of-interest-laden BSU Special Committee, along with other folks like Jerry Coyne, Jo Ann Gora, etc.

But here’s one definite nomination: If anybody from the “Freedom From Religion Foundation” is reading this thread, YOU BUMS LOST!!

FL

By the way, some readers may want to see for themselves, and think through for themselves, some of the important issues and questions that were brought to the BSU Board of Trustees by John West, vice president of the Discovery Institute.

Take a few moments and read what he is saying. He is making a lot of sense:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vi[…]&id=9591

FL

Note: when FL uses the word “honestly”, it means “I have just delivered a statement so devoid of evidential support that I have trouble believing it myself, and therefore need to shore it up somehow.”

Carry on.

Oh, and observe the interesting FLian analysis:

This wasn’t about creationism, oh, no. Wasn’t about intelligent design, either, because these brave academics aren’t going to teach it.

But because of this, creationists won and you bums lost. Only this isn’t about creationism.

Not often you see a bloke dribbling out of both sides of his mouth at once. Not a pretty sight.

I’m not sure this is a win for ID as you seem to think, FL. Indeed, I dare say that most of us are quite happy that “both science majors and other majors [will now] give Gonzalez’s cosmological ID hypothesis (and likely the Dembski/Behe ID hypothesis) a fair hearing AS SCIENCE, on their own time and dime.” It is still the case that those who approach these topics as science overwhelmingly see that evolution spanks ID naughtily. Of course, those who approach it as a challenge to their religious beliefs are produce different stats. That said, I am not at all as confident as many of my fellow evil atheists in believing that science will win out in the end. Ignorance, superstition and religious fanaticism are very strong forces that very well may win the social and political battle. Who knows?

Robert, in response to your assertion that “The point of organized ID and YEC is to base it on investigation and reason concerning evidence,” can you point to any ID and YEC adherents who are not religious, indeed not a Christian or a Muslim? This might bolster your claim nicely.

oops, “are produce” should be “produce” of course

FL reminds me of Baghdad Bob.

Byers makes me wonder if he was dropped on his head as a child.

No matter how much you fluster and whine, and in this case try to rationalize away a clear defeat, this Ball State outcome is what should happen every time reason bumps into delusion. Science and rational thought, are the light to the cockroach that is AIG, the DI and the claims of the religious in general.

No one cares what students do on their own time. They are free to read anything or believe anything they want, always have been, always will be. The only issue here is if they will be subjected to pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo pretending to be science in a state funded class room. They will not. Nor do the personal beliefs of anyone teaching or hiring teachers matter one bit. They are free to believe whatever they want, always have been, always will be. They don’t need to be fired, unless they try to substitute their religious beliefs for science in the classroom. They have been warned not to do that and they will be watched carefully. If they try to illegally substitute religion for science, they will be caught and probably fired. This sends the right message to all scientists. Teach science and keep your personal religious beliefs out of the classroom.

Of course once they learn the basics of good science, they aren’t going to be fooled by any of the pseudo scientific bull… loney. That’s why FLoyd got his panties in a bunge. He loses again.

As for Byers, no kids will be spelling his name, unless it’s in nursery rhymes about delusional incompetents.

Just for the information of fatuous Floyd, Hedin doesn’t have tenure. I suspect that, when the decision on that comes up, the muck da mucks at Ball State will remember Michael Behe and act accordingly. Furthermore, as I understand it, Gonzalez does not have a tenure track position so, if he brings up ID or creationism, he won’t be around long.

FL said:

Very predictable move on Gora’s part. If she is not a card-carrying evolutionist herself (maybe she is), she knows about the harsh pressure that card-carrying evolutionists are capable of exerting, and she knows there are plenty of ‘em at Ball State and in the media.

So her statement is, well, predictable. C’est la vie.

However, I notice that professors Hedin and Gonzalez (and Gonzalez had already agreed not to teach ID at Ball State anyway!), are NOT fired and NOT resigned from Ball State.

Hence the ultimate victory is theirs, honestly.

****

Think about it. At this point in time, would Dr. Gonzalez actually need to offer cosmological ID classes at Ball State? Not at all. Not even slightly.

Why is that? Because any BSU science major, indeed any Ball State student of any major, who DIDN’T already know that Dr. Gonzalez is the co-author of the compelling and fascinating book The Privileged Planet, surely knows it now, thanks to all the evolutionist-driven publicity and controversy.

Wanna speculate that every bookstore in the Muncie region, and probably farther, will experience steady sales and orders for the TPP book this year? Plus Amazon, BN, and other online outlets? Plus many Ball State students simply googling the topic “ID” and “Gonzalez” and reading various articles thereof?

Can’t prove it, but things are sure looking that way.

****

So make no mistake: this is not Iowa State Redux.

Granted, Hedin and Gonzalez will not be teaching ID at Ball State. But their mere presence (esp. with all that publicity), will cause MANY Ball State students, both science majors and other majors, to give Gonzalez’s cosmological ID hypothesis (and likely the Dembski/Behe ID hypothesis) a fair hearing AS SCIENCE, on their own time and dime.

And there’s NOTHING that the evolutionists can do to stop that important outcome. Lo Siento, baby.

Therefore, if we start asking who won or lost this particular chess game (yes Keelyn I occasionally indulge), it’s at least clear that professors Hedin and Gonzalez won. (Certainly they didn’t win as big as some folks may have hoped, but a win IS a win.)

But if they won, then who lost? Hmm. Write down the conflict-of-interest-laden BSU Special Committee, along with other folks like Jerry Coyne, Jo Ann Gora, etc.

But here’s one definite nomination: If anybody from the “Freedom From Religion Foundation” is reading this thread, YOU BUMS LOST!!

FL

FL said:

Very predictable move on Gora’s part. If she is not a card-carrying evolutionist herself (maybe she is), she knows about the harsh pressure that card-carrying evolutionists are capable of exerting, and she knows there are plenty of ‘em at Ball State and in the media.

So her statement is, well, predictable. C’est la vie.

However, I notice that professors Hedin and Gonzalez (and Gonzalez had already agreed not to teach ID at Ball State anyway!), are NOT fired and NOT resigned from Ball State.

Hence the ultimate victory is theirs, honestly.

Well, I am not certain that I necessarily agree with Gora’s decision, Ball State being a university level institution. But, that is really beside the point. What I want to know is, what is it you think they won? I mean, other than a job.

Think about it. At this point in time, would Dr. Gonzalez actually need to offer cosmological ID classes at Ball State? Not at all. Not even slightly.

Why is that? Because any BSU science major, indeed any Ball State student of any major, who DIDN’T already know that Dr. Gonzalez is the co-author of the compelling and fascinating book The Privileged Planet, surely knows it now, thanks to all the evolutionist-driven publicity and controversy.

Wanna speculate that every bookstore in the Muncie region, and probably farther, will experience steady sales and orders for the TPP book this year? Plus Amazon, BN, and other online outlets? Plus many Ball State students simply googling the topic “ID” and “Gonzalez” and reading various articles thereof?

Can’t prove it, but things are sure looking that way.

Yes! A very hefty $10 wager that “The Privileged Planet” will show no statistical increase in sales over the next year - or ever! Keep track of it.

So make no mistake: this is not Iowa State Redux.

Granted, Hedin and Gonzalez will not be teaching ID at Ball State. But their mere presence (esp. with all that publicity), will cause MANY Ball State students, both science majors and other majors, to give Gonzalez’s cosmological ID hypothesis (and likely the Dembski/Behe ID hypothesis) a fair hearing AS SCIENCE, on their own time and dime.

And there’s NOTHING that the evolutionists can do to stop that important outcome. Lo Siento, baby.

Well, what students do on their own time is their own business (within some limits).

Therefore, if we start asking who won or lost this particular chess game (yes Keelyn I occasionally indulge)

Awesome!! Then we should “indulge” on the same board sometime soon! It is very easy to do. :)

, it’s at least clear that professors Hedin and Gonzalez won. (Certainly they didn’t win as big as some folks may have hoped, but a win IS a win.)

Yes but again, won what??

But if they won, then who lost? Hmm. Write down the conflict-of-interest-laden BSU Special Committee, along with other folks like Jerry Coyne, Jo Ann Gora, etc.

But here’s one definite nomination: If anybody from the “Freedom From Religion Foundation” is reading this thread, YOU BUMS LOST!!

FL

Oh, you are just being hateful. :(

FL said:

By the way, some readers may want to see for themselves, and think through for themselves, some of the important issues and questions that were brought to the BSU Board of Trustees by John West, vice president of the Discovery Institute.

Take a few moments and read what he is saying. He is making a lot of sense:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vi[…]&id=9591

FL

Seriously??

to give Gonzalez’s cosmological ID hypothesis (and likely the Dembski/Behe ID hypothesis) a fair hearing AS SCIENCE, on their own time and dime.

That’s certainly what everyone who comments here has done. And those of us who know or care about science have concluded that, when given a fair hearing, ID reveals itself to be internally incoherent, politically motivated, science denial propaganda.

I certainly encourage everyone to give ID/creationism a fair hearing. That’s not what “cdesign proponentsists” want, of course.

The problem here, though, which is now being partly addressed, is not that Gonzalez was hired and supports ID/creationism. That might or might not be a problem, depending on the circumstances, but we have a much simpler situation here.

The problem is clearly that he was hired almost solely because he’s an ID/creationist.

In research science and academic medicine, an academic career is challenging to establish. The route is roughly parallel - PhD program/medical school/both, followed by post doc/residency/both, followed by an assistant professor position, which usually carries rather intense responsibilities to teach and/or provide service coverage, and to do research, at the same time. Eventually, the aspiring academic may or may not be promoted to associate professor, which implies some greater degree of security, and may imply tenure or advancement toward tenure, where tenure is offered.

This route is far, far more challenging to follow in the current environment than it once was, for reasons that need not directly concern us here, some of them rather controversial.

The bottom line is, an assistant professor of Astronomy job at a large research institution is one that can expect a vast number of incredibly talented and dedicated applicants.

Gonzalez’ hire represented extreme sectarian favoritism in the distribution of taxpayer dollars. I am not a lawyer, and when I say this, I neither endorse nor deny the idea that this might represent violation of the first amendment or any other law, because I don’t know, and if you think you know, you are either more informed than I am, or more infected with the ego-inflating condition known as the Dunning Kruger effect. Regardless of the legal ramifications, it is obvious at a pragmatic level that Gonzalez was favored because of his religious beliefs.

The President of BSU has admirably addressed the issue of whether or not Astronomy at BSU will be turned into Creation Science 101, but the hire may be hard to undo. The taxpayers of Indiana may be stuck with a non-productive faculty member who constantly balks at his responsibility to teach straight science, and if they are very unlucky, who seeks to slip sectarian science denial into basic science courses.

Scott F said: …she doesn’t want it reduced to a laughing stock, with the reputation of another “Liberty” University.

Framing Error: You forgot to also put “University” in quotes.

FL said:

By the way, some readers may want to see for themselves, and think through for themselves, some of the important issues and questions that were brought to the BSU Board of Trustees by John West, vice president of the Discovery Institute.

Take a few moments and read what he is saying. He is making a lot of sense:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vi[…]&id=9591

FL

I find FL sorely lacking in knowledge. I have done a little of what he himself should have done but what’s the use? Science vs. FL

FL said:…card-carrying evolutionist…

Cool! Where do I apply to get mine?

Cool! Where do I apply to get mine?

You can print out one from this site, I think. Is your membership paid in full?

Of course, there’s another — legal — reason that Ball State University is reacting differently than sectarian schools: Its middle name.

As an arm of the state of Indiana, Ball State University is subject to the Establishment Clause, the Lemon test, the Santa Fe Schools analysis, and all of those other inconveniences that inhibit religious advocacy in government bodies. The private, sectarian schools aren’t.

President Gora’s statement and its rhetoric went beyond the legal bare minimum, for which she deserves praise. The underlying substance, though is the legal bare minimum. If Gonzalez (or whomever), in a class that is not explicitly devoted to the study of religious doctrine as a social construct intended to provide the students with a greater understanding of social context without advocating its correctness, does advocate the correctness of religious doctrine in class or in official university communications of any kind, the State of Indiana is liable for constitutional torts (and quite possibly statutory discrimination). The only winners then are the lawyers and spinmeisters… and as Ball State doesn’t even have a law school…

Keelyn said:

FL said:

…it’s at least clear that professors Hedin and Gonzalez won. (Certainly they didn’t win as big as some folks may have hoped, but a win IS a win.)

Yes but again, won what??

…The right to teach religiously inspired anti-science propaganda in place of science, in science classrooms?

But if they won, then who lost? Hmm. Write down the conflict-of-interest-laden BSU Special Committee, along with other folks like Jerry Coyne, Jo Ann Gora, etc.

But here’s one definite nomination: If anybody from the “Freedom From Religion Foundation” is reading this thread, YOU BUMS LOST!!

FL

Oh, you are just being hateful. :(

What did you expect from a science-hating bigot?

Of course, this letter, (actually an email to faculty and staff), had nothing to do with the hiring of Gonzalez, and everything to do with the course Hedin was teaching, “Boundaries of Science,” which promoted ID to the virtual exclusion of real science. The reading list included, Behe, Dembski, Meyer, Gonzalez, and a number of other religious-oriented apologists. Gora’s email included the sentence, “As a public university, we have a constitutional obligation to maintain a clear separation between church and state,” and was an obvious attempt to fend off legal action from the FFRF. Whether there are any substantive changes to Hedin’s teaching methods, beyond simply revising the reading list, remains to be seen.

I’m just wondering what the students, maybe even the student union, think about this. These clowns won’t be indoctrinating elementary school kids. Chances are the upper-level students will milk Gonzalez et al. for all they’re worth, and just snicker at the ID crap.

Trying to teach ID in a science class is a hot-button topic. Aside from the constitutional issue at the K-12 level, it’s basically no different than trying to teach quantum mechanics in a course about the history of ancient Egypt.

It is misrepresentation; done covertly, it’s a violation of Truth In Advertising, if not of academic integrity.

tomh said:

Of course, this letter, (actually an email to faculty and staff), had nothing to do with the hiring of Gonzalez, and everything to do with the course Hedin was teaching, “Boundaries of Science,” which promoted ID to the virtual exclusion of real science. The reading list included, Behe, Dembski, Meyer, Gonzalez, and a number of other religious-oriented apologists. Gora’s email included the sentence, “As a public university, we have a constitutional obligation to maintain a clear separation between church and state,” and was an obvious attempt to fend off legal action from the FFRF. Whether there are any substantive changes to Hedin’s teaching methods, beyond simply revising the reading list, remains to be seen.

Yes but now he has been informed of the official policy, he has been warned that he is being watched and he can now be fired for willfully violating the policy. The university has set it up so that they can take legal action and win. If he chooses to stop violating the policy illegally then he can start teaching real science and the students win. If he refuses he can be fired and again the students win. EIther way, his days of teaching creationism as science are over so we all win. Same goes for Gonzalez.

Why don’t these yahoos preach in their tax free churches if they want to lie to people?

gnome de net said:

Trying to teach ID in a science class is a hot-button topic. Aside from the constitutional issue at the K-12 level, it’s basically no different than trying to teach quantum mechanics in a course about the history of ancient Egypt.

It is misrepresentation; done covertly, it’s a violation of Truth In Advertising, if not of academic integrity.

I think a more accurate analogy might be, trying to teach astrology or alchemy as science, in a course about the history of ancient Egypt.

Both quantum mechanics and the history of ancient Egypt are valid scientific subjects. They just happen to be unrelated topics.

In contrast, the concepts of astrology or alchemy are at least tangentially related to the history of ancient Egypt (or could be), while astrology itself is pure supernaturalism. Just as, ID is tangentially related to abiogenesis and is pure supernaturalism.

Yet even that analogy is not quite accurate. Astrology and alchemy may be wrong, but at least the astrologists and alchemists were trying to make sense of the world, trying to understand the way the world worked. Both astrology and alchemy made testable predictions about the world. Knowing what little was known about the world at the time, both were plausible ideas. Heck, even Newton centuries later was an alchemist.

In contrast, ID makes no predictions about the world, and is not a “positive” statement about anything.

But knowing what is known about the world today, astrology, alchemy, and ID are all laughably ignorant.

If you want to get a sense of Eric Hedin’s commitment to academic integrity, compare the proposal he submitted for the course to the actually syllabus and reading list given to the students. A classic case of bait-and-switch. Jerry Coyne’s blog website has links to the documents and an extensive discussion of the matter. He is also largely responsible for the case getting going.

Henry J said:

eric, The “logically follows” part of that needs more emphasis. Otherwise, they’ll just make something up, and say it was a prediction.

In other words, funny business as usual.

Could any evidence convince you of biological evolution?

Microevolution only. I like what Gregor Mendel did, and I like Ralph Seeley’s work. Good evidence there.

But as Mendel tried to tell Darwin in a written letter, there ARE limits. That’s what the evidence says, Harold.

There’s biological evidence all over the place Harold. The question is what is the correct INTERPRETATION of that evidence.

I love those Galapagos finches, how their beaks shorten or lengthen in response to their environment. I love those little E. Coli’s that do what they do in Dr. Seeley’s research on how far evolution can really go.

But there are limits. Finches are still finches despite their changing beaks, Fruit Flies of still Fruit Flies despite tons of chemical and radiation zapping.

The E. Coli’s have said (in their little tiny E. Coli voices),

“Evolution can take two little steps, but that’s all it can do. It’s no good.”

FL

But as Mendel tried to tell Darwin in a written letter

You do not by any chance mean this letter?

The fact the letter is written in English might give us a clue that it is fiction; but on the website where the photograph first appeared, the artist also tells us that he wrote it himself on a grocery sack, and the pen came from his wife’s calligraphy set.

If you believe that that letter was written by Mendel, look up what the Duke of Wellington supposedly said when addressed as “Mr. Jones.”

phhht said:

FL said:

Some of those papers, such as at the 2009 GSA, have addressed explicit issues on which the Christian YEC’s are openly intending to promote literal YEC belief, flood geology, as science.

So c’mon, FL, cite those papers!

Or is this just more hot air?

I guess those papers you referred to are no more real than your gods, huh FL. That was just stinking breath farts. Just horseshit you were shoveling. Just hot air.

Right, FL?

I was afraid it would come to this:

I guess those papers you referred to are no more real than your gods, huh FL. That was just stinking breath farts. Just horseshit you were shoveling. Just hot air.

While it is hard to disagree with the sentiment, I’d prefer to keep the rhetoric on a higher plane.

Matt Young said:

I was afraid it would come to this:

I guess those papers you referred to are no more real than your gods, huh FL. That was just stinking breath farts. Just horseshit you were shoveling. Just hot air.

While it is hard to disagree with the sentiment, I’d prefer to keep the rhetoric on a higher plane.

I’ll happily retire to the BW; it’s my usual haunt.

Just send FL along, please.

I’ll happily retire to the BW; it’s my usual haunt.

Just send FL along, please.

Yes, it is about time – next comment.

FL said:

Some of those papers, such as at the 2009 GSA, have addressed explicit issues on which the Christian YEC’s are openly intending to promote literal YEC belief, flood geology, as science.

These YEC geology papers do not exist. No such papers were presented at that conference. No paper intended to promote a YEC belief or “flood geology” has ever been presented to a scientific conference attended mostly by mainstream geologists of respectable credentials. FL is telling a hopeful untruth that he picked up from some creationist site or other.

There are, oddly enough, YEC geologists. They exist. They have never presented evidence for “flood geology” or any YEC belief, anywhere. They exist, but it does not.

So Floyd admits that no evidence will ever convince him that evolution is true, because that’s not what the evidence shows! And he probably doesn’t even see why this is a ridiculous position. The crippled thinking is almost too much to believe, but then again we shouldn’t underestimate this guy, he has proven that he really is this stupid many times.

So once again Floyd is caught in lies and evasions. TIme for him to run off to the bathroom wall again. He can’t win any arguments there either.

Yeah. FL’s source is here: http://www.icr.org/article/christia[…]luential-at/

This is by Steve Austin. It’s typical of ICR, a weasel-worded collection of economies with the truth. He says that four papers presented at this conference:

… are significant because they represent the preliminary results from the FAST program (Flood Activated Sedimentation and Tectonics), geologic research being sponsored by the National Creation Science Foundation through the Institute for Creation Research.

What is far more significant is that these papers do not bear out, nor relate to, any aspect of young earth creationism. Three attempt to show that it is arguable that the Coconino sandstones might have been water-deposited rather than wind-deposited, and that they are different from wind-blown sand dunes in Nebraska. This would be unremarkable. The fourth is a proposed change in the relative dating of two massive rockslides in Wyoming. This, too, is hardly controversial.

There is no evidence for any YEC assertion here, or elsewhere. None for a recent creation. None for a global flood. All the papers assume natural cause and natural process.

Austin is writing flim-flam for the faithful. So is FL, except he shows up here to do it.

But “science education”? Please.

I would like to read the original syllabus for Hedin’s course. But, not surprisingly, the original link is now dead. Has anyone seen another posting of it? Thanks.

At the request of the author, I have sent this comment to the BW. I think most of us will be grateful if there are no more responses to FL on this thread. – Matt

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

This is my final comment in this thread. Matt Young, I would appreciate it if you would leave this final post right here in your thread, since it directly responds to some Panda accusations that were made in this thread.

Creationists have shown themselves to be influential within GSA. Expect to hear more after next year’s (2010)annual GSA meeting during November in Denver.

References (these are the papers that some Pandas say don’t exist–FL.)

1.Austin, S. A. 2009. The dynamic landscape on the north flank of Mount St. Helens. Geological Society of America Field Trip Guide. 15: 337-344. Reprint available from the author.

2.Cheung, S. P., R. Strom, J. H. Whitmore and P. G. Garner. 2009. Occurrence of dolomite beds, clasts, ooids and unidentified microfossils in the Coconino Sandstone. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, session 35-4; Whitmore, J. H. and R. Strom. 2009. Petrographic analysis of the Coconino Sandstone, northern and central Arizona. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, session 35-24. Reprints available from the authors.

3.Baechtle, K. P. and J. Whitmore. 2009. Characterization of the sand in the Nebraska Sandhills. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, session 35-2. Reprints available from the authors.

4.Clarey, T. L. 2009. Timing relations between the South Fork and Heart Mountain fault systems with implications for emplacement, Wyoming, USA. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, session 223-10. Reprint available from the author.

Thanks in advance Matt. I also appreciate your insistence on “keeping the rhetoric on a higher plane.” I can continue refuting these blokes on the Bathroom Wall; that’s my home base.

FL

Steve “the guy who repeatedly tried to disprove radiometric dating by deliberately giving radiometric laboratories wrong data in order to get bogus readings” Austin?

None of those papers FL “cites” are “scientific papers.”

All of those papers are a bunch of typed flim-flam created by a bunch of Morons and Liars For Jesus playing doctor. They don’t belong on the Bathroom Wall: they belong in a toilet.

FL said:

This is my final comment in this thread. Matt Young, I would appreciate it if you would leave this final post right here in your thread, since it directly responds to some Panda accusations that were made in this thread.

Creationists have shown themselves to be influential within GSA. Expect to hear more after next year’s (2010)annual GSA meeting during November in Denver.

References (these are the papers that some Pandas say don’t exist–FL.)

1.Austin, S. A. 2009. The dynamic landscape on the north flank of Mount St. Helens. Geological Society of America Field Trip Guide. 15: 337-344. Reprint available from the author.

2.Cheung, S. P., R. Strom, J. H. Whitmore and P. G. Garner. 2009. Occurrence of dolomite beds, clasts, ooids and unidentified microfossils in the Coconino Sandstone. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, session 35-4; Whitmore, J. H. and R. Strom. 2009. Petrographic analysis of the Coconino Sandstone, northern and central Arizona. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, session 35-24. Reprints available from the authors.

3.Baechtle, K. P. and J. Whitmore. 2009. Characterization of the sand in the Nebraska Sandhills. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, session 35-2. Reprints available from the authors.

4.Clarey, T. L. 2009. Timing relations between the South Fork and Heart Mountain fault systems with implications for emplacement, Wyoming, USA. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, session 223-10. Reprint available from the author.

Thanks in advance Matt. I also appreciate your insistence on “keeping the rhetoric on a higher plane.” I can continue refuting these blokes on the Bathroom Wall; that’s my home base.

FL

All four of those papers have been addressed, Floyd. None of them contain any mention or reference to YEC or Flood geology. They address actual science using scientific terminology and scientific methodology (i.e., materialistic naturalism). Granted, the scholarship may not be the best, but it’s still all science. In addition, I do not think you realize just how detrimental citing these papers is to your argument. Creationists and you may believe themselves to be influential within GSA, but more than anything else it shows the true type of people you are dealing with – hypocrites. That’s why when a real scientist, like Joe Meert [professor of geology at the University of Florida], asked pseudo-scientist Marcus Ross [assistant professor of geology at Liberty University] how, after giving a pure science talk on Late Cretaceous marine stratigraphy, and using terms like “millions of years” and standard geologic concepts, he could “harmonize this work with his [Ross] belief in a 6,000-year-old Earth,” Ross responded by saying that for a scientific meeting such as GSA, he thought in a “framework” of standard science; but for a creationist audience, he said, he used a creationist framework. [Wow]

In other words he is a two-faced hypocrite – a liar, to put it simply, because the two views are diametrical to each other. They cannot both be correct. And all the YECs who attend such conferences do it – Austin, Whitmore, Clarey, Garner, et al - they talk real science to real scientists, and YEC and fundamentalist religion to the science illiterates they roost with at home. You cannot be any more hypocritical than that.

I will say no more about it on this thread [I suspect Matt will send all of this to the BW – you can continue there, if you wish].

JimboK said:

I would like to read the original syllabus for Hedin’s course. But, not surprisingly, the original link is now dead. Has anyone seen another posting of it? Thanks.

I think this is what you’re looking for:

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpres[…]junk-science

Caught in a web of lies and deceit, trolling off topic nonsense, begging for special permission to “refute” the charges against him. chuckles stoops to a new low even for him. Ban the boob altogether. Even the bathroom wall is too good for the likes of him. This is your brain on creationism.

FL, please stop using references to creationist sources. Spend some time learning what science says about the same subjects and you’ll find a different story. Only problem is they do not support your home turf, fundamentalism. Therefore, to preserve your complacency don’t take my advice.

gnome de net said:

JimboK said:

I would like to read the original syllabus for Hedin’s course. But, not surprisingly, the original link is now dead. Has anyone seen another posting of it? Thanks.

I think this is what you’re looking for:

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpres[…]junk-science

Right before you get to what is called the Master Syllabus, there is a link to the actual syllabus given to students. Somewhere else there is the reading list, which is a Who’s Who of Intelligent Design Creationism. Remember, this is supposed to be a class in physics, not biology.

Fatuous Floyd has no interest in learning anything about real science. His mind is made up, the facts are irrelevant.

Rolf said:

FL, please stop using references to creationist sources. Spend some time learning what science says about the same subjects and you’ll find a different story. Only problem is they do not support your home turf, fundamentalism. Therefore, to preserve your complacency don’t take my advice.

Please post responses to FL on the BW. See Tenncrain’s comment about 6 comments above if you need a cue. At FL’s request I have left alone his comment at 10:19, also above.

Matt G said: Somewhere else there is the reading list,

The reading list is here.

tomh said:

Matt G said: Somewhere else there is the reading list,

The reading list is here.

Thanks Matt and Tom!

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Matt Young published on August 3, 2013 8:18 PM.

A pioneering evolutionary biologist turns 269 was the previous entry in this blog.

Gekko gecko 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