Going Ape in Orlando Sentinel

Thank you to Orlando Sentinel reporter Leslie Postal for the nice story on me and Going Ape: Florida’s Battles over Evolution in the Classroom!

‘Going Ape’ relives Florida battles over evolution:

Despite his strong belief that evolution as a fundamental tenet of biology must be taught, Haught said he tried to make the book neutral and readable for anyone interested in the topic. And, Haught said, it’s a book without a true ending.

“I guarantee we’re going to see this come up again,” the Port Orange man said.

And Florida Citizens for Science president Jonathan Smith had some kind words for me. Thanks, Jonathan!

“Brandon’s a thinker,” said Jonathan Smith, president of Florida Citizens for Science. “He’s intrigued by stuff like that.”

About Brandon Haught

Communications Director for Florida Citizens for Science.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to Going Ape in Orlando Sentinel

  1. Pierce R. Butler says:

    A nice article – it almost made me the think the reporter had actually read (parts of) the book!

    Alas, the obligatory “balance” quote from a creationist – one who admits not having even heard of the book (in which he is mentioned, months after publication) – could not be omitted.

    When I tried to access comments (if any), a pop-up ad with a wonky link in place of a “close” button wouldn’t allow it. Here’s hoping the trolls haven’t run off the “intelligent, educated segment of the population” at the Sentinel.

    Have you ever considered, when a journalist has to follow that asinine “both sides” formula, offering him or her a chance to contact Chris?

  2. Chris says:

    Pierce,

    Both sides? When did your religion allow you to look at both sides?

    Sure if you know someone who can explain how evolution works without the religious hoopla and the BS, have em call me, I’d love to know.

    I’m sure it won’t shatter your faith to read a little commentary from one of the ten most cited chemist in the world. You may not be able to stomach the information being on a Christian site. But you might achive a higher level of nature worship as your inner fanatic religious doctrines come to light. So take the shot.

    http://todaychristian.net/world-famous-chemist-tells-truth-evolution-dealt-death-blow/#_

  3. Ivorygirl says:

    Chris,
    So you go ahead and quote an article from a bejebus website that quote- mines a single scientist. A scientist who said this when asked about his position on Creationism/ID “I have been labeled as an (ID) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design. I am sympathetic to the arguments on the matter and I find some of them intriguing, but the scientific proof is not there, in my opinion. So I prefer to be free of that ID label” and “If the truth were known I really do not have a good understanding of evolution.” Larry Moran covers this and offers him some enlightnment-http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/03/a-chemist-who-doesnt-understand.html
    So how many thousands of biologists, genetic scientists, embryologists, paleo archaeologists who all fully support evolution, along with literally hundreds of thousands of peered reviewed papers, do you want me to quote? Just because a few (and it is a few) scientist either do not comprehend how evolution works or let their religious convictions distort logic, does not constitute a valid argument.

  4. Ivorygirl says:

    Pierce,
    Remember, Chris still thinks of evolution as a religion. This allows him to reject it out of hand for not being the RIGHT religion.. Evolution, to people like Chris, is a false teaching that must of necessity, bear wicked consequences. Chris believes people adhere to evolution out of religious belief, not on rational arguments and evidence. That’s how Chris see things and he ascribes that sort of thinking to others. Chris adheres to his religion, Evolutionists to theirs. That’s how he sees the world. To him, evolution is just another religious dogma among many. He doesn’t understand what is and so he’s free to categorize explanations of natural things to the supernatural.
    It never occurs to him that evolution is no more a religion than is heliocentrism He does not understand, in an intuitive way, that ideas used to explain observations can be accepted based on how well they fit the specific evidence they were generated to explain, without needing scriptural approval first. He only accepts heliocentrism because in modern times it is NOT seen as a dangerous dogma, a false teaching that threatens to lead people away from his own religious beliefs. That’s reserved for evolution, because it diverges from his understanding of the Bible and therefore it must be a false teaching that cannot bear good fruit.
    Chris is caught in a kind of mental trap, where logical fallacies are given the trappings of Biblical wisdom, endorsed by the Ultimate Authority as a reliable test for discerning true and false beliefs. Chris displays no curiosity and no education to feed it with if he had it, and zero flexibility to admit any possibility of error on his part.

  5. Chris says:

    Ivorygirl,

    It sounds like you OD’ed on bad koolaid again. I know you can site thousands of scientist and piles of peer reviewed papers written by scientist who believe there is substantial evidence to support their belief. The problem is that these so called supporters of evolution have only produced the same thing you have, which is nothing. Smart cracks, fake drawings, bold undocumentable claims, and magical morphisim doesn’t sell well to everyone. We don’t need thousands of papers or millions scientist, I would just like to see ONE example of the change which you say is so common. Nothing special, with the claim that apes are so closely related to humans, just change one of those back or forth, thats all. If there is something easier, then do that, just ONE.

    This issue is not about my belief, the bible, heliocentrism, Obama’s birth certificate, morality, atheism or Donald Duck, nor science, it’s your belief being questioned. You’ve implicated you have the factual evidence proving without a doubt one type of creature has been changed to one of a completely different family. Demonstrate it. Give it up.

    You remind me of a little girl I once knew. She claimed to have a blue cat. It wasn’t dyed, it was born blue. Every time I ask to see the cat it couldn’t be found. There were alway reasons the cat was missing, but I never saw saw that cat. The bottom line is she never showed me the cat, so I don’t believe she ever had a blue cat. Neither do I believe evolutionist have what they claim to have, for the same reasons.

  6. Pierce R. Butler says:

    Ivorygirl – Thanks for a more substantial rebuttal than I would have been able to muster tonight. I generally disagree with the tactic of describing a stranger’s motives and mentality, but so far Chris’s non-answer and repetition seem to support your claims.

    Chris, you make some very serious accusations: “Smart cracks, fake drawings, bold undocumentable claims…” in scientific literature? Do you have any examples more recent than Ernst Haeckel and the Piltdown Hoax (both of which were uncovered by scientists following the standard procedures of double-checking all factual claims)? Remember, the evidence since then has survived the same review process. If you can provide solid evidence of fraud, please bring it forward now. Or – shut up (false witness and all that old-fashioned stuff, y’know).

    Have you ever asked preachers describing miracles the same questions you asked the little girl with the blue cat?

    And have you found anything at all to support the claims I asked you about eight days ago?

  7. Pierce R. Butler says:

    Gee, after 11 days now I begin to fear that Chris may not have an answer to my question.

    * sob *

  8. Chris says:

    Pierce,

    I think it is easy to say evolution has become a bonafide religion with it’s temples, donors, scared writings, idols, prophets and faithful believers. Being able to trump the word science into the belief may pass a legal test, but that in no way alters the facts. The fact is there is no other term other than religion which can be used to identify the entire scope of fallacies accepted by evolution’s followers.

    I believer your question way, “If Ruse were here, I’d ask him to name specific examples of individuals who use evolution as a religion. Since he isn’t (sfaik), I’ll have to ask Chris to do the same with the last sentence of his most recent comment.”

    You yourself fit well as a faith based believer, Regardless of the evidence, you’re ready to discredit anything or anyone which might question your belief. Ivorygirl never has anything worth peanuts, but she’s a true soldier for the faith and willing to burn on the stake.. Eugenie Scott, Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne and the like have been no less than missionaries for the faith. The definition for religion is not just belief in the biblical God. Evolution is a system of belief with supreme importance. Natural Selection is a creative god to the evolutionist, with Darwin as its messiah. You may have the commitment of a suicide bomber, but that doesn’t mean your belief is everything or correct.

    Let me give you an example. ‘Lucy is a hoax.’ I’ve read where people have cried in admiration apron viewing the scrappy bones this dead monkey. The hoax statement could make their blood boil, even though there is plenty of evidenced to back it up far beyond any belief. But it won’t matter, regardless of what information or evidence that I or any science produces to back the claim, they nor you will accept it. Your faith will only allow conferming information that supports your belief. Just like a Jehovah Witness, any questioning is apostate.

    In her own little twisted way Ivorygirl somewhat sums up where you appear to be. Caught in a kind of mental trap, where logical fallacies are given as reality from humanist wisdom. Wisdom endorsed by evolution’s assumptions that stand as a reliable test for discerning true and false beliefs. No curiosity, no skepticism can question your hope. And there in no flexibility to admit any possibility of error on your position.

    Todays evolution is religion pure and simple.

  9. Pierce R. Butler says:

    Chris: I think it is easy to say evolution has become a bonafide religion …

    Yeah, it’s easy to say it. Repeating empty and false lies doesn’t make them true, but yes indeed, it surely is easy.

    Saying “Yabba dabba doo!” is even easier, and would contain fewer lies. Or, if up for a challenge, try “Noy schmov ka pop!” or the ever-popular “Ph’nglui mglw’nafh Cthulhu R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn!”

    Spend some time at, say, Pat Robertson’s web site. Compare with http://evolution.berkeley.edu/. Note which one provides backing from a book of ancient myths, and which seeks out real-world physical evidence, and shows a history of revising its concepts and which declares its assertions beyond question (apparently what you mean by “belief with supreme importance” – note that actual science insists on clear and consistent definitions).

    Meanwhile, you’ve made yet another mean-spirited and unsubstantiated accusation. Provide us some evidence that the “Lucy” skeleton is a hoax, or admit that you’ve just borne yet more false witness against hard-working paleontologists whose work has passed rigorous review by a full generation of hands-on, field-educated & lab-experienced specialists.

    If this continual insult and smear campaign, so far never backed up by specifics, is the best that creationism can offer, Christians (or Jews, Muslims, whoever) ought to feel wholesale embarrassment at having such spiteful poo-flinging associated with their traditions.

  10. Chris says:

    Pierce.

    You’re a hoot. Most humorous, you’ve proven my point to the letter.

  11. Ivorygirl says:

    Chris,

    You said of me “Ivorygirl never has anything worth peanuts,” Well for once I have to agree with you. However you place me at a point of extreme dichotomy, when it comes to attempting to answer any of your challenges for “proof” of evolution. One part of me wants to laugh and not bother trying to explain anything scientific to you and the other part wants to “reel off” the overwhelming evidence science has to offer. I, as a science teacher for 23 years and now a doctorial candidate, (I know that education does not impress you) could present the evidence for evolution until the cows come home, but you would reject it out of hand. We could examine the evolution of Equidae or Cetaceans with me presenting evidence from biology, molecular phylogeny, embryology and what would your response be? You would scurry away to some Creationist web site and then come back with the usual well worn out clichés that real scientist have disproven time after time. So Chris I just don’t see the point in wasting my time with someone who has already made up his mind (the Ken Ham Syndrome). I, on the other hand, try to keep an open mind on all things, regardless of your nasty pejoratives.

    Your invisible man in the sky is not real Chris and you can argue all you like about your book of fairy tales; it’s not real either. Go ahead, try to present scientific evidence to defend your delusions, you cannot and we both know you have tried before without success. You cannot, because your beliefs in gods and ghosts and devils and zombies and talking snakes and talking asses and vegesaurs and miracles and on and on are nothing to do with science. You are wrong if you think otherwise. If you were not wrong, you would be able to offer some empirical evidence in support of your claims and we both know you can’t.
    We all know on this site not to take your poorly educated position seriously, so I’m not going to bother wasting my time engaging you in pointless rhetoric. I’m sure that now you will jump up and down and claim the victory for Jesus, well go ahead, but guess what Chris, no one cares, no one is listening, not even your imaginary friend.

  12. Pierce R. Butler says:

    Chris – back up your accusation with facts, or retract it.

  13. Chris says:

    Pierce,

    Accusations? I feel like I answered your question with facts.
    Show me where I’m wrong.

  14. Pierce R. Butler says:

    Chris – No matter what you “feel like”, you still have not provided any follow-up (never mind what I asked for, evidence), regarding the serious slurs you made against the entire paleontological community by claiming ‘Lucy is a hoax.’

  15. Chris says:

    Pierce,
    I’m not sure what planet you’re on, but it isn’t earth. You originally ask for evidence that showed evolution as a religious belief rather than a science. And I indicated today’s molecule to man evolution will reject real science to religiously support evolution’s suppositions. Here is a typical example. Even discovering something questioning the sacred theory is intolerable blasphemy. http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/18549/

    As for dead monkey Lucy, check it out yourself.

  16. Pierce R. Butler says:

    Even by your deplorable standards, Chris, that’s one lame evasion.

    As for the link you did provide – blehh. “Your daily dose of right-minded news and commentary…” [emphasis in original] says it all, but the sidebar of the editors’ credentials (one has worked for the Moonie Washington Times, D. Horowitz’s Front Page, and Murdoch’s Weekly Standard – a veritable hat trick of wingnut hackery) puts a cherry of unreliability on top.

    And the story you point us to says nothing about Lucy, or about evolution as a religion, but gives us only one side of a story of a microscope technician who claims to have found soft tissue on a triceratops horn, and who has this week filed a lawsuit for apparently losing his university job after pushing religion on his co-workers. No doubt we’ll hear more about him from the usual “Christians are gonna get put in FEMA camps!” crowd (see Stein, Ben).

    Chris – if you can’t back up your own claims with relevant and reliable material, you in effect admit you ain’t got squat. You’re letting down the creationist side, big time.

  17. Chris says:

    Pierce,
    Regardless of the evidence, you’re ready to discredit anything or anyone which might question your belief. Didn’t I say that.

  18. Chris says:

    Ivorygirl,

    I’m not sure who the invisible man in the sky would be according to your description. But your comments would indicate you must be the most well informed, educated and intelligent individual in the universe or the exact opposite.

    After 23 years of being a pro evolution science teacher I would think you could easily produce convincing criteria to solidify evolution’s suppositions. But it appears you were just a gullible indoctrination specialist who can only ridicule thoughts outside of your cherished belief. I don’t see where you would be a very valuable asset to keep the dream alive. But, good luck and congratulations anyway on your doctoral candidacy.

  19. Pierce R. Butler says:

    Regardless of the evidence, you’re ready to discredit anything or anyone which might question your belief.

    Chris, if someone makes a statement contradicting a belief of mine, I try to find out more on the question to see which of us has the better case. If the situation allows, I ask the other person directly for the basis of what they said.

    Which is exactly what happened here: you made a claim that a major scientific discovery was a hoax. I asked you to back that up with evidence. So far, you have failed to do that, attempting instead to distract us with a barrage of insults and accusations, still unsupported in any way. This strongly implies that (a) you have no basis for your slur and (b) you know it.

    Didn’t I say that.

    Do you somehow have the idea that repeating a claim makes it true? Let me offer you a little epistemological help:

    Repeating a false claim does not make it true.
    Repeating a false claim does not make it true.
    Repeating a false claim does not make it true.

  20. Chris says:

    Pierce,

    Insults and accusations? I don’t think so, you should accept my evaluation as a complement for your belief, you’ve great faith.

    The Lucy Hoax comment was meant as an example. However scene you would like to discuss it, I’ll concede. Lucy is a hoax. Prove me wrong.

  21. Pierce R. Butler says:

    No, Chris. It doesn’t work that way – you made the assertion, you back it up. Who cheated, in what way, and who says so?

    Please cite sources, ones that disprove the facts presented at (for one beginner-friendly site presented by recognized scientists) evolution.berkeley.edu.

    Or go to PubMed and do a search for “australopithecus afarensis”, and count how many of the peer-reviewed papers raise questions of the legitimacy of this family of fossils among actual working paleontologists.

    So I went ahead and posted you with evidence against your claim anyhow.

    Your turn!

  22. Chris says:

    Pierce, you’ve got to be kidding. Yes, it does work that way, its your belief system being challenged, not mine. If you’re going to claim Lucy is not a hoax you’ll need quite a bit more than papers written by biased believers of a peer review. I can do that. By appointment the same similarities claimed as transitional can be attributed to design. And if you’re going the use the speculative hearsay of a others as evidence you’ve failed to prove anything.

    As of this point, Lucy remains a hoax.

  23. Ivorygirl says:

    Peirce/ Chris,

    Not wishing to interject my comments to your discussion, however, Chris you are clearly in the wrong. Here is the philosophical definition of “burden of proof”.

    When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proven true. This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the assertion, but is not valid reasoning
    .
    Chris you clearly made the positive assertion (Lucy is a fake) the burden of proof falls directly on you.

  24. Ivorygirl says:

    Chris,
    The evidence is quite clear, you have no curiosity about real science, none whatsoever. The simple fact that you describe science as a religion is a dead giveaway. No one who actually understands how science works would say such a thing. No one who actually wanted to understand nature would say such a thing. And of course there is the fact that you obviously never studied science when you had the chance.
    So tell us Chris, if you are so interested in learning how science works, why do you accept “god did it” as the answer? It answers nothing at all. Why won’t you even watch a television special that explains all of the major findings of science over the past one hundred years in simple terms that even you could understand? Why didn’t you try to discuss or even understand any science in the years you have been posting here? You really are suffering from the “Ken Ham Syndrome”
    Chris, you have no curiosity and no desire to learn at all. You can’t hide it; we all see your true colors. How sad.

  25. Pierce R. Butler says:

    As of this point, Chris’s statement(s) remain a hoax.

    Ivorygirl – I’ve met (online) a few people who do treat science as a religion. They don’t understand it, they just “believe” it, and they accept changes in observation and theory with the same uncritical credulity of The Faithfulâ„¢ swallowing contradictory doctrines.

    Of course, I don’t say this in support of Chris’s inane refusal to present so much as a Jack Chick comic tract to back up his libel – I doubt he knows the difference between accepting claims from an authority figure and re-evaluating a concept based on new evidence or reasoning. I bring it up just to maintain the FCS tradition of keeping each other on our toes by not sweeping anomalies under the rug.

  26. Chris says:

    Ivorygirl,

    You seem to be completely blinded by some kind of weird fog. Maybe pot smoke. I don’t believe you’ll find anywhere where I’ve said science was a religion. It could be religion to you I suppose, your the only one that has said anything like that. Along with your other crap like no curiosity or no desire to learn anything you manage to evade even the simplest questions.

    So clam down, take a hit, and lets pretend you could be wrong for once and let Pierce produce the evidence which proves Lucy is not a hoax. And lets see if he has the proof you don’t have.

  27. Pierce R. Butler says:

    Now that Chris has brought mind-altering drugs into the discussion, should we start counting the instances in which he accuses others of what he himself does?

    Wanna go out any further on that skinny little branch of projection and accusation, Chris? Remember, countless Warner Bros documentaries demonstrate that you never fall unless you look down.

    As for providing evidence, Chris, it seems you have not yet troubled your beautiful mind by clicking on the link in my comment of July 31, 10:52 pm. Note: you yourself still haven’t offered squat.

  28. Chris says:

    Pierce-I’ve read much of the regurgitated information from your July 31 post and have found nothing which would fit our topic. I was hoping you might have something, I was wrong.

    It would appear that Lucy is fabricated icon of an imaginary belief system.

    I’ll leave you with this thought as you try to convince yourself that you’re not the product of intelligence. And let me offer you a little epistemological help:
    Repeating a false claim does not make it true.

    Repeating a false claim does not make it true.

    Repeating a false claim does not make it true.

  29. Pierce R. Butler says:

    Chris: I’ve read much of the regurgitated information from your July 31 post and have found nothing which would fit our topic.

    Multiple scientists analyzing and building on the data from “Lucy” has nothing to do with the topic of validity of research involving “Lucy”?

    Maybe you got mixed up, did an internet search, and ended up looking at websites concerning Linus Van Pelt’s older sister and Mrs. Desi Arnaz.

    Or perhaps you just refuse to perceive anything contradicting your own dogma.

    Any lurkers still reading this thread should have enough to make up their own minds about that by now. The creationists among them are no doubt weeping and rending their garments at the embarrassing failure of their cause’s self-appointed champion.

Comments are closed.