An early account of what happened

Florida Citizens for Science board member and middle school science teacher Mary Bahr attended today’s Senate Judiciary committee meeting to testify against Senate Bill 2692, the deceptively-named “academic freedom” bill. The following information is based on my e-mail and phone correspondence with her following the meeting.

Bahr said that the other issues on the committee’s agenda flew by. The proceedings then slowed considerably once SB2692 came up. Senator Ronda Storms, who had introduced the bill in the Senate, started off the procedures by presenting her bill, stating that teachers were discriminated against and that the bill was not intended to introduce religion into the classroom. Storms was very careful in her wording and had a tendency to avoid directly answering some questions. One of the biggest issues that came up involved the teaching of intelligent design. Storms was sharply questioned by Senator Ted Deutch about the documentation for teacher discrimination and Storms repeated that some teacher felt discriminated against, but she never did provide any actual proof. Deutch also asked if this would prevent the teaching of intelligent design and Storms did not answer the question. Senator Don Gaetz asked the question in reverse: does the bill support the teaching of intelligent design and her answer then was no. Note the difference between supporting and preventing. They are key words here. It appears through the careful phrasing of Storms and other senators that intelligent design won’t be mandated, but it might not be prevented either. It seemed that Gaetz’s question was purposely loaded to elicit the appropriate response from Storms.

Surprisingly, there weren’t many people on hand to speak before the committee. Bahr said that it was just her and Rebecca Steele of the ACLU against the bill and about five people in support of the bill. However, only two of the supporters spoke at length due to time constraints.

Speakers included John Stemberger of the Florida Family Policy Council — although he insisted he was only representing himself — who advocated for the bill and gave anecdotal evidence of teachers who have been discriminated against. Bahr said Stemberger read from about three e-mails. However, once again it should be noted that no definitive proof of discrimination was offered beyond the unsubstantiated stories Stemberger related from the e-mails. Another speaker for the bill represented himself as a scientist and advocated for intelligent design (I don’t think Bahr got his name). Steele testified about the threats of lawsuits because of the bill and that it is another stealth attempt to insert intelligent design into the classroom. Bahr followed her. Bahr provided me the text of her speech, which I’ve included below. Bahr said it was obvious that many of the senators had already made up their minds on how to vote; a couple of them were carrying on conversations while Bahr gave her speech and so didn’t hear a word she said.

Early news briefs said that the vote was 6-3 along party lines in favor of the bill. However, the Senate website said it was 7-3. There are 11 senators on the committee, and Bahr said that Senator Arthenia Joyner (D) was not present. However, the Senate website attendance sheet said that all senators were present. Maybe Joyner left at some point? It’s believed that Joyner might have been a fourth no vote had she been on hand.

Bahr said that Senators Deutch and  Steven Geller should be applauded for their honest attempts to get to the truth of this matter.

Here is Bahr’s speech:

Good morning,

My Name is Mary Bahr and I have been a middle school science teacher in Florida for 15 years. I am a National Board Certified Teacher, and served on the new state science standards writers’ committee.

I have taught middle school life science and evolution for at least 10 years and have always felt free to fully cover that curriculum. As a National Board Certified science teacher, I have taught workshops and new teacher prep courses and have come to know many science teachers around my district. We constantly discuss curriculum and teaching approaches and I have never heard anyone express concern for their academic freedom or that they felt constrained from teaching all the scientific evidence surrounding any concept, including evolution. Consequently I find the purpose of Senator Ronda Storms bill SB2692 confusing. The recently passed State Science Standards ensure that students have the opportunity according to Nature of Science benchmark SC.912.N.1.3. to: ” Recognize that the strength or usefulness of a scientific claim is evaluated through scientific argumentation, which depends on critical and logical thinking, and the active consideration of alternative scientific explanations to explain the data presented.” This certainly opens all standards, including evolution, to critical examination by both teachers and students. So my question as a classroom teacher is what does this bill direct me to do that I would already not do under the new standards?

Clarity is an important part of effective implementation of academic standards. Without clear direction from academic standards a study in the Spring 2008 American educator reports that “teachers do not have a common understanding of what students should have learned …what they are expected to master … or what they are preparing to learn. Neither do textbook writers, professional development providers, or assessment developers have clear direction.” So clarity lost by passing SB2692 will in my experience reduce the effectiveness of our nationally acclaimed science standards.

This bill becomes even more confusing when you note that although the bill does not “promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs”, Senator Storms recently said in a Tampa newspaper that “Under this bill, if you have a teacher who is pro-evolution and every student is intelligent design … that teacher is safe to teach that as a theory.” I do not consider the belief in intelligent design as “scientific evidence”, neither do the courts and neither does mainstream science. But apparently Senator Storms, who wrote and originally sponsored this bill, does see it as science. So, again if this bill passes what will we be teaching in our science classrooms and what will the consequences be?

The reason I took the time to come here on my spring break and volunteered to write the science standards over the last year is that I want our children to receive the very best science education we can give them. There are two big reasons why I think this is so important: they are security and prosperity. The tools of science called theories provide just that for us today. With the proper preparation, they can continue to protect us and our children from a future that is surely changing. Good science education will ensure graduates from Florida’s schools will be ready to step into the high tech jobs that will result. Our new standards have been widely hailed as a great beginning on doing just that. Senator Storms’ bill muddies the waters and takes us away from our job of preparing for the future. Please vote yes for Florida’s future by voting no on SB2692.

Bahr said that later on Storms approached her and said that the quote in the Tampa newspaper was inaccurate. Somehow, the way it came across was not what she actually intended to say. However, it should be noted that there was plenty of talk about intelligent design during the committee meeting, and there obviously is still some confusion concerning the subject due to purposely tricky phrasing and refusal to properly answer certain questions. Also keep in mind that on the House side, Rep. Hays hosted the Expelled movie debacle, during which intelligent design became an issue.

The unverified voting record (due to differences in what news sources are reporting and what the Senate website is reporting): Voting for the bill were senators Villalobos, Baker, Portilla, Fasano, Gaetz, Saunders and Webster. Voting against the bill were Deutch, Geller and Ring.

Some early news reports: Daytona Beach News-Journal, News-Press, Orlando Sentinel, Sun-Sentinel, Palm Beach Post.

148 Responses to “An early account of what happened”

  1. MaryB Says:

    Two additions: Bob Zannelli took notes for the meeting and caught lots of details I missed while nervously preparing to testify. The vote was probably confusing because it went by so fast and beause the responses were given in low voices – hard to hear.
    Mary Bahr

  2. James F Says:

    Mary,

    Thank you so much for taking the time to stand up for science. This is truly good citizenship, and we need more of it.

  3. S.Scott Says:

    I also thank you Mary.

    Can you tell me if the “Substantial Changes”
    (page 9 of 9) …

    http://www.flascience.org/judiciaryreview.pdf

    … were implemented in to this bill ?

  4. William Wallace Says:

    Does it still have a section 7?

  5. S.Scott Says:

    I don’t know what you are talking about William, but do your own research.

  6. Paulr Says:

    I heard the NPR take of the meeting on the way home tonight, including Storms answering the question, “do you have evidence that teachers have been called out for teaching the controversy are being harassed?” As expected we got, “yes, there are teachers who have been pressured to accept the dogma of evolution but she couldn’t name them.

    The report went on to quote another politician who lobbed this gem, “everyone knows there are huge flaws in evolution and the kids deserve to hear about them.”

    My head is going to explode.

    S.Scott -good on ya mate! We need to stop feeding the troll a.k.a. William Wallace. Go PV Sharks!!!

  7. ellazimm Says:

    If I lived in the region I would let my elected official know that no matter what else they had done for their constituency if they supported the bill I would not vote for them come next election.

  8. harold Says:

    Well, it will just end up in the usual way.

    Students’ rights will be grossly violated. There is no question that some teachers in Florida are planning to preach Jesus or L. Ron Hubbard as biology right now, as I write this.

    Then there will be a lawsuit, which the creationist will lose big.

    Then all the fools who voted for it will be kicked out of office (if that doesn’t happen before the suit is decided – sometimes it does).

    It would be a disaster if a teacher actually taught Behe BS or some such thing, without mentioning religion. That would confuse students and a lawsuit would be trickier. No problem. Won’t happen. No-one wants to teach BS except the right wing authoritarian “religious” crowd, and they will not be able to restrain themselves from going too far.

    See you losing in court again, creationists.

  9. Tim Wilson Says:

    Thanks Mary for taking a stand against this insidious back-door bill. I have been following this story for a while and have done what I can to ensure awareness of it.

    For example I had it posted at the Richard Dawkins Foundation website here:

    http://richarddawkins.net/article,2445,Anti-evolution-bill-clears-another-hurdle,Orlando-Sentinel

    Thanks again.
    Tim.

  10. MaryB Says:

    S Scott,
    If you mean the changes passed by the first committee – yes that was the bill that passed committee today. No new changes were discussed today.

  11. S.Scott Says:

    No, the changes in the Judiciary Review are what I was asking about.

    I don’t know how else to explain what I am talking about, and unfortunately I cannot “copy and paste” from a pdf. file.

    (page 9 of 9) …

    http://www.flascience.org/judiciaryreview.pdf

  12. Lee Bowman Says:

    Harold wrote:

    “Students’ rights will be grossly violated. There is no question that some teachers in Florida are planning to preach Jesus or L. Ron Hubbard as biology right now, as I write this.”

    What about section 7 of the bill?

    “Nothing in this act shall be construed as promoting any religious doctrine, promoting discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promoting discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.”

    “It would be a disaster if a teacher actually taught Behe BS or some such thing, without mentioning religion. ”

    How so? Behe accepts common descent. The farthest he goes in the theistic direction is an acceptance of the ‘design inference’, based on IC; no designer specified.

    If a teacher even mentions the possibility of ID, I guess it is plausible that a student might smile and say, but we know who the ‘designer’ is (wink, wink)….

    Automatic ‘F’ for the day!

    I’ll make a prediction. ID (but not religion) is soon to become considered a valid hypothesis, and antibiotics will still be available … 😉

  13. Cheryl Shepherd-Adams Says:

    I’ll make a prediction. ID (but not religion) is soon to become considered a valid hypothesis,

    So if it’s not a valid hypothesis at this time, why the clamor to have it taught as science?

    What other science concepts are included in the state-wide curriculum that haven’t gone through the tempering of the mainstream scientific community?

    Why should creationism (oops – ID – sorry, channeling Rush Limbaugh there for a moment) be any different?

    “ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard.” Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, page 89

  14. Joseph E. Banks Says:

    Mary, what about the spiritual well-being of Florida’s students. You very convenientely left that out. Darwinism leaves no place for a loving God, but rather teaches that there is no God. Is this the academic environment you want? And just how does teaching evolution equip the student for a high tech job? This is the standard song and dance that evolutionist contorts to.

  15. C. David Parsons Says:

    WHY DID EVOLUTIONISTS HATE A GOD WHOM THEY DO NOT BELIEVE EXISTED? A little closer look at their Father Darwin reveals the truth.

    The following dissertation on Darwin is lifted from Volume 1 of The Quest for Right, a series of seven books on origins based on physical science, the old science of cause and effect.

    On the outset, the reader should be aware that Darwin was a self-proclaimed agnostic; he did not deny the possibility that God exists but believed it was beyond one’s mental ability to decide if there is, indeed, any divine force. Darwin, in response to an invitation to become a Patron of the Cat Show (September 18, 1872), lightheartedly referred to himself and cronies as “atheistical cats.” By definition, an atheist either does not believe in, or denies the existence of God. Regardless of the profile, agnostics and atheists alike believe that all questions concerning origins, being, and the like may be explained fully by material phenomena and logic; scientists have since added a third dimension, the orderly application of mathematics, called electronic interpretation—read the matter in detail in Volume 1.

    A cultural note: a marked distinction separates men who profess to be disciples (followers) of Christ and adherents of the Bible and those who profess to be outside Christianity (called unbelievers). Regarding the current definitions of agnostic and atheist, the text of the New Testament refutes the associated attributes, specifically the possibility that man (for whatever reason) either does not believe in the existence of God or else believes it is beyond one’s mental ability to decide if there is a God. Countering the claim, the Apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, penned, “For the invisible things of him [God] from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they [men who ‘hold the truth in unrighteousness’] are without excuse” (Romans 1:20-22). The things God created are aptly referred to as “the glory of God.”

    In deference to the biblical precept, the eternal power and Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are clearly evidenced (seen and understood) by the things that God created and made. One only has to observe his or her surroundings; for instance, a wilderness setting with stately trees reaching skyward, colorful wildflowers dotting the meadows, wood ducks by a pool, and animals scurrying about in the underbrush, to realize the knowledge of the existence of God. There are, however, men who do “not like to retain God in their knowledge” (Romans 1:28), and cast down every thought of God. Regrettably, the course of action is not without due penalty: “Because when they knew God [everyone has known God at one time in his or her life], they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:21, 22).

    In light of the foregoing scriptures, the current definitions of agnostic and atheist are wholly inept: men who hold the biblical precept to be patently false, professing either not to believe or know that there is an eternal power, are neither agnostic nor atheist, but willfully disobedient—willful, “done on purpose; deliberate.” The comprehensive assessment will be fully justified; please read on.

    Concurring with the biblical principle, Darwin may be charged with being willfully disobedient, as observed in his criticism of the tenets of Christianity. Of one certainty the reader may be assured, Darwin did not speak objectively when it came to Christianity—objectively, “uninfluenced by personal feelings, prejudices or agendas.” In a bitter denial of Christianity, Darwin complained that he “could hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.” Why was Darwin so embittered? Read Revelation 20:11-15; 21:7, 8.

    In order to access an online, audible Bible, and to read the biblical verses in context, go here: http://www.audio-bible.com/bible/bible.html
    You may wish to bookmark the site. RealPlayer is required to listen to the Audio Bible.

    Darwin once confessed to being a theist, the belief in the existence of a god or gods, in particular the belief that God both created and rules all earthly phenomena. After the publication of the Origin, Darwin charged his original belief in God to the “constant inculcation” (instruction or indoctrination) in a belief in God” during his childhood, which was as difficult to cast down as “for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake.” With self-assurance, Darwin purposed in his heart that he would no longer retain God in his knowledge, resolving instead to become an “agnostic.” The reader is, therefore, cautioned that, whenever reading books and articles about Darwin, most, if not all, biographical authors are predisposed to depict him in a favorable light, oftentimes allowing pro-evolutionist sentiment to prejudice their work.

    The Old Testament did not escape Darwin’s inflamed rhetoric; concerning the validity of biblical histories (in particular, the Genesis account of creation), Darwin pointedly declared that “the manifestly false history of the earth….was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos (sic), or the beliefs of any barbarian.” Thus, Darwin likened the creation of the first man, Adam (Genesis 2:7-25), to a mere fairy tale. As an alternative to the counterfactual history, he summarily disposed of both creationism and God by declaring in the Origin that, once the reader entertains the “volumne (sic) on the origin of species…light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history,” meaning that man and apes diverged from a common ancestor through the agency of evolution without the aid or influence of God—there is no God.

  16. PC-Bash Says:

    Umm… spam?

  17. PC-Bash Says:

    Mary, what about the spiritual well-being of Florida’s students. You very convenientely left that out. Darwinism leaves no place for a loving God, but rather teaches that there is no God.

    No, evolution does not teach this. Evolution, and science by its very definition, is silent on the existence or non-existence of theistic beings. The science classroom is no place for religion. What’s next? Religion in math?

  18. PC-Bash Says:

    ID (but not religion) is soon to become considered a valid hypothesis, and antibiotics will still be available

    ID will never be a valid hypothesis. It assumes the existence of an intelligent designer which cannot be measured by science. Only an idiot would think that ID would ever be valid science.

  19. Mike O'Risal Says:

    I don’t know why folks are still hanging around in Florida waiting for the inevitable. The state government is determined to make and keep the place an educational and intellectual backwater. It seems more and more that “Floridian” is to become synonymous with “decay.”

    If only you good people would move somewhere else, we could at least saw the thing off and set it adrift, or maybe see if it’s not too late to convince Spain to take it back.

  20. James F Says:

    “Darwinism” teaches there is no God? Over 11,000 Christian clergy beg to differ.

    http://www.evolutionsunday.com/

    As do Francis Collins, Robert Bakker, Ken Miller, George Coyne, Owen Gingerich, and many other scientists.

  21. Philip Bruce Heywood Says:

    I’m possibly about neutral regarding these developments, largely because the word, EVOLUTION, is not defined. What would it’s definition be, in a court? Literally, it simply means, an unfolding or unrolling. Cuvier saw the (poorly understood) fossil record as a sequence of catastrophes and creations. R. Owen saw it as a series of transformations, with a built-in cause which he couldn’t explain. Cuvier and Owen were pioneering anatomists. They accepted that the unrolling was brought about in some way by a Creator. Darwin seems to have suggested gradual change under the influence of selective breeding, but he was a self-confessed speculator rather than a scientist in the mold of Cuvier or Owen. Thomas Huxley backed Darwin/Wallace, yet suggested that nature could “make leaps”. These men tended towards agnosticism. Since then, nothing much has changed. Except that recent advances in technology are enabling us to catch a glimpse of the remarkable physics/chemistry of the evolution of the species — you don’t change EOHIPPUS to MIOHIPPUS (or whatever) by filling six volumes with notes on genetic mutations. You find an energy pathway for the necessary chemical reactions that bring about changes to the information-bearing molecules in the cell – DNA, and so on. This isn’t simple, it isn’t Darwin’s Common Descent, but it is an unrolling of life, fulfilling the requirements of the principles of physics. So I suggest, hang in there, wait for technologic advance to end the speculation. But two approaches may safely be ruled out: full-on Darwinism, because it fails to meet the requirements of the geologic record, and of Physics; and Young Earth Creationism, because it fails to account for either the geologic record, or the biblical text.

  22. David L Says:

    @Philip Bruce Heywood
    .
    As a newcomer to this debate, I’m not sure which side you are on. Could you elaborate on your assertion that two approaches may safely be ruled out? How exactly does Darwinism, “fail to meet the requirements of the geologic record, and of Physics”, and how exactly does Young Earth Creationism, fail to “account for ……. the biblical text.”
    .

  23. Kathy S Says:

    So just like with the Monkey trial…we need a volunteer, someone who is willing to preach in class so we can file a lawsuit against them. Anyone?

  24. Ivy Mike Says:

    “Mary, what about the spiritual well-being of Florida’s students. You very convenientely left that out. ”

    The “spritual well-being of Florida’s students” (whatever that really means) is the responsibility of their parents and churches, not the taxpayers funding the PUBLIC schools. It is also most certaily NOT something that science teachers are responsible for.

    Much as the Bible-bangers hate to admit, there are some places and contexts in which “spirituality” is simply inappropriate. Religion does not have to be preached at all times, every minute of the day.

    In addition, nothing prevents any parent from teaching their children whatever beliefs they wish to brainwash them with. You cannot, however, presume to brainwash and indoctrinate MY kids, on MY dime.

    It is not the responsibility of scientists to support your, or anyone’s, religious beliefs. If scientific research and findings contradict your beliefs, too bad. Science is concerned with observable reality, not superstition.

  25. Ivy Mike Says:

    “I’ll make a prediction. ID (but not religion) is soon to become considered a valid hypothesis…”

    What, it will somehow come up with the supportive evidence from observable reality that has so long eluded it? It will figure out how it can be falsified? People will somehow forget that ID is repackaged creationism?

    I won’t hold my breath.

  26. Jason Says:

    The Religion of Scientism

    Don Watson

    Materialism holds a commanding position in science throughout the world today. The materialistic world-view has earned this position because it has been extremely fruitful for the scientific work of the last few centuries, not only in the physical sciences, but in biology, too. The “clock-work” model has created and reinforced the strong belief that, given enough time and money, materialistic science will eventually explain everything, including life and consciousness. The philosopher of science, Karl Popper, wryly characterized this belief as “promissory materialism.” Indeed, promissory materialism is a fundamental article of faith in Scientism.

    Scientism has been characterized in many ways, some neutral and others pejorative. In this essay, I use neutral terminology, e.g., “The use of the style, assumptions, techniques, and other attributes typically displayed by scientists” (Random House Dictionary). In other words, Scientism is what the scientific community actually does and believes, regardless of what it claims to do and believe.

    The scientific community formally adopted materialism as the basis of its belief system in 1667 when Thomas Sprat wrote a letter to King Charles II on behalf of the Royal Society. To protect English scientists from the persecutions that were rampaging in Europe, the Royal Society solemnly promised that its scientists would not “meddle . . . with Divine things,” and would limit their studies of humans to “their bodies” and “the products of their hands.” The Royal Society thus promised that, while scientists would avoid the subjects of God and the Soul, “in all the rest, [they] wander at their pleasure.”

    With this oath, Scientism became the religion of materialism, and the basic tenets of materialism became the Scientist’s Creed.

    From our perspective today, Scientism’s covenant with the Church looks like a pact with the devil. In exchange for the safety of scientists, the Royal Society agreed to blind scientists to one half of the observable universe. With this self-inflicted hemianopsia (half-blindness) scientists can see the world objectively, but not subjectively. This is a severe disability because subjective observation is the only way that leads to understanding the origins of life and consciousness. Thus, the dogmas and canons of Scientism limit basic studies of life to molecular biology, and aside from certain branches of psychology, preclude studies of the “self” altogether.

    Scientism’s oath nearly aborted the embryonic science of psychology. Unlike physical science, which addressed inanimate objects, psychology bluntly confronted the sacred “soul.” In 1653, twelve years before the Royal Society’s covenant, J. de Back had divided the study of man into three parts, “Psychologie, Somatologie, and Hœmatologie,” and specified that “Psychologie is a doctrine which searches out man’s Soul, and the effects of it.” Indeed, the prefix, psyche meant “soul,” but this was soon to change.

    The idea of subjecting the soul to scientific study incited religious institutions to counterattack, so psychologists defended themselves by secularizing their discipline. They changed the meaning of psyche from “soul” to “mind.” However, sidestepping the issue did little to quell the conflict. Thus, when Sigmund Freud introduced his psychoanalytic theory, which rested on the concept of the unconscious mind and psychic determinism, he re-inflamed emotions in the religious communities.

    Completing the transformation, John B. Watson removed the psyche from psychology altogether in 1913 when he introduced behaviorism, which he characterized as “a purely objective experimental branch of natural science. Its theoretical goal is the prediction and control of behavior.” Thus, to ensure compliance with Scientism’s canons, the behaviorists joined physical scientists in adopting objective observation as their gold standard. Behaviorism is appealing to those who make robots because they can claim that robots that behave like humans are humanoid.

    Behaviorism has contributed several important ideas about learning, but it’s severely limited because there’s no such thing as objective observation. All perceptions are subjective, including those of behaviorists, because they occur in the mental apparatus of the “self.” As a result, scientists who embrace the myth of objectivity fail to appreciate their most important instrument—themselves and their mental operations. That’s one reason they can’t see the cultural and psychological impediments to their science.

    As selves, we humans perceive objects by interpreting our sensory experiences according to our world-views. Fortunately, however, our world-views aren’t static and immutable. They change as we learn from our experiences. That’s why psychology has grown beyond behaviorism, and why scientific thinking can grow beyond the arbitrary limitations of Scientism. Indeed, we can expect this growth in the next scientific revolution and paradigm shift.

    We can also make mistakes because we can interpret our subjective experiences as objects, whether those “objects” are real or not. In either case, this process is termed objectification. For real objects, we’ll characterize the process as “valid objectification,” to distinguish it from “false objectification.”

    False objectification is misinterpreting mental constructs that aren’t produced from objects—for instance, the sensory experience of pain. Experiences of pain originate in neuronal states, not objects, so objectifying it is a mistake. Despite this, neuroscientists continue in their quest to study pain “objectively.”

    False objectification also applies to the visceral sensation of hunger. When my granddaughter, Shelly, was three years old, she recognized the root of the fallacy. Her mother said, “You can’t be hungry now,” and Shelly replied, “You don’t know ’cause you aren’t me.” She thereby identified her subjectively observed “self” as the only person who could observe her hunger. If we were to deny the self, we would also have to deny hunger.

    Today it’s fashionable in neuroscience, cognitive science, molecular biology, and philosophy to use false objectification to deny, ignore, or explain away the “self.” For instance, James D. Watson, co-discoverer with Francis Crick of the structure of DNA, claims that the DNA sequence “tells us who we are.” If this were true, then identical twins would be the same person. Yet no twin ever confuses himself with his twin. Thus, the notion of DNA determining “who we are” reflects the limited thinking imposed by false objectification.

  27. J. L. Brown Says:

    David, P. B. Heywood is one of the regular trolls over at the “Panda’s Thumb” website. Encouraging him will only make for more egregious, though usually polite, displays of his mental illness–and probably isn’t healthy. He is a denier of Modern Evolutionary Theory, but his objections make little sense, his grasp of the actual science is very poor to non-existant, and his use of terms is bizarre & non-standard. From his post #149919:
    It is of course possible to cross a turkey and a bull. The objection people raise is that turkey chicks don’t live on milk. But bulls don’t have milk. According to common descent theory, species gradually change one to the other, so, if you get a bull that is 2% turkey, and a turkey that is, say, 2% bull, they might just cross. IN VITRO, goes without saying. So what do you get?
    Despite this he seems a nice guy; the irony is that the poor content of his posts is almost indistinguishable from the arguments of serious, sane (presumably)proponents of Intelligent Design Creationism.

    Lee Bowman, Joseph E Banks, & C David Parsons:
    Science is a description of nature. That’s it, really.. just a description of how natural processes operate; a kind of map. Scientific descriptions (theories–the word has a precise meaning in science) change because scientists are constantly struggling to improve this map. The competition among scientists is fierce; those who contribute new understanding, or substantially improve our understanding in an area are rewarded with more and bigger grants, better posts, and fame. Scientists, being human, may: make mistakes, have inappropriate attitudes, have crazy beliefs of all sorts, be arrogant, or any number of other failings that to which all humans are prone. The cool thing about the ideas they put forward is this: scientists are not the ultimate arbiter of what constitutes ‘good science’… nature is. If an idea fails to model nature correctly, then it doesn’t withstand scrutiny, and gets discarded in favor of one that gives a better description of nature and natural processes.

    Notice that science deals with nature; this is because science must measure, quantify, test–everything is rigorously studied and described in exacting detail. The goal to this is reproducibility: anyone can use the description of nature to reproduce & understand the observations. Science cannot study or comment upon the supernatural for precisely this reason; it cannot be measured, it cannot be quantified, it cannot be tested. How tall is Shiva? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? How can anyone ensure that Zoroaster hasn’t manipulated the contents of all the test tubes? Or force Odin to perform precisely a particular miracle only in tube #3? How can such entities be identified, and distinguished from each other? The only answer available to science is to say that nothing can be determined with certainty; the supernatural cannot be studied by science.

    So, what should be taught in the science classroom? Should we teach a foreign language; or history; or anything which has been shown to NOT be an accurate description of nature and natural processes? Simply put, NO; if science is not taught, then it stops being a science class. Other topics have their place, and it is not in the science classroom. People who do not want to know about nature are free to ignore their own knowledge; free to throw away the map that science has made for them–but do not try to deface or destroy the maps that belong to other people. Students are entitled to get the best education we can offer; substituting non-science for science is a great disservice to them.

  28. Jason Says:

    So should the religion of scientism be taught in our public schools ?

  29. BGT Says:

    Philip Bruce Heywood is a troll who probably found his way over here from Pandas Thumb.

  30. J. L. Brown Says:

    Jason;
    You have constructed an elaborate strawman equating science with ‘scientism’ with ‘the religion of materialism’; you go on to describe this in the most inflammatory and bombastic terms–science made a ‘pact with the Devil’ and ‘blinded’ itself ‘to half the observable universe’.

    Your arguments are, in a word, garbage. They appear to be deliberately constructed to confuse methodological naturalism (‘Hey, we can only measure measurable things!’) with philosophical naturalism (‘Things which cannot be measured must be non-existent!’) with a large dose of zealous demagoguery thrown in.

    What the heck are ‘subjective observations’? You imply that they are currently outside of science, but don’t define your terms or explain how anything you say can contribute to our understanding of nature.
    You assert ‘the dogmas and canons of Scientism limit basic studies of life to molecular biology, and aside from certain branches of psychology, preclude studies of the “self” altogether.’ but absolutely fail to support this assertion, apparently hoping that you can just assume that it is true.
    You make contradictory claims, that the ‘dogmas and canons’ of your scare-word ‘scientism’ prohibits study of the self and stifles psychology… and then declare that psychology has ‘progressed’ beyond (the evils of) behaviorism.

    Science is not a religion; science has no comment on the supernatural; science is the correct content for science instruction.

  31. Jason Says:

    Lets see. The preceding essay was to show how the vast scientific community has narrowed its ability to look at all various human input when making their observations. A man’s conscience the ability for one to determine right and wrong, a man’s intuition, motive, etc. To box yourself into the limitations of evidence based on you basic senses you invite error. However motive is the moral bias used to determine all knowledge. To say that this is not true one must realize they have either seared their ability to discern this or hiding their own moral failures but publicly denying this truth. Scientism has given a cloak to those who do not want to learn of those things which might make them temporarily uncomfortable so they limit their findings to what does not make them feel bad, either consciously or unconsciously. I know that you will mock this and may even use derogatory terms to react to this truth, that is predictable – but be it as it may.

  32. Jason Says:

    So when there is a conflict between a closed system of “science” and religion where do you then mediate between the two. Do you ignore it or discuss it ? Should you then tell others which one to believe or give them a choice ? Pure religion takes into account all the evidence available to it. It does not limit itself to sight, taste and touch. Now you say that you are not limited to it. As evidence you limit yourself to that resource of evidence. However you draw conclusions based on intuitions or bias of your belief system. So the mind is the battle ground. One must come to a point and think he is able to determine all truth or that he is limited in discovering it on his own – this then he must trut one greater than himself to reveal absolute truth – you say it should be a “scientist” others say it should be the all knowing God (as revealed to them in their conscience or spirit).

  33. J. L. Brown Says:

    No, your previous essay (posted April 9th at 11:54) was a conspiracy theory about the ‘Scientist’s Creed’ and how ‘scientism’ embraced/enforced a rejection of all things supernatural. You did this with profoundly erroneous logic, obscured under your own completely defined terms of ‘scientism’ and ‘religion of materialism’.

    As I explained in my first post, science observes the observable; the supernatural is excluded only because it is not observable… not because some black-hooded cabal has issued some sort of decree. That you failed to grasp–or address–this speaks poorly of your ability to participate in reasonable, adult discussion. Once again: Science describes nature and natural processes; science is not a religion.

    You say:
    To box yourself into the limitations of evidence based on you basic senses you invite error. However motive is the moral bias used to determine all knowledge. To say that this is not true one must realize they have either seared their ability to discern this or hiding their own moral failures but publicly denying this truth.
    My reply: I notice that you have framed this in such a way that anyone who disagrees with you is mentally defect and/or morally failed–as though you were the ultimate authority on moral rightness! Well, I’m not afraid of your bombast or colossal hubris: I think you are making up meaningless crap in order to look like an authority.

    Science describes nature; it is not a ‘prescriptive’ moral guide, nor should it be. Tell me, O spouter of “… moral bias used to determine all knowledge.’ what are the motives of a photon? Is gravity moral or immoral? Or take a shot at the questions in my previous ‘reproducibility’ section.

    You assert–yet again without support–‘A man’s conscience the ability for one to determine right and wrong, a man’s intuition, motive, etc. To box yourself into the limitations of evidence based on you basic senses you invite error. However motive is the moral bias used to determine all knowledge.’ As a counter, I can observe that there are prisons the world over full of people with consciences who have failed to discern right or wrong–conscience obviously cannot be an absolute guide, so whither then your ‘science’? If people with acceptably moral behavior can (and they do) disagree, then your ‘basis of all knowledge’ collapses; it cannot support learning.
    On the other hand, using what we can observe in nature as a guide to what is and is not possible in nature–and as a basis for explaining events in the universe around us–has proven remarkably fruitful; upon this sturdy base all modern scientific knowledge rests.

    Once again, your arguments are deeply flawed; for all that they may appear slick and convincing to the unwary. You continue to ignore questions inconvenient to you; you have not retracted or defended any of the distortions in your first post; you have not presented substantial arguments against presenting mainstream science education in science classrooms; you appear to continue under the delusion that science is a conspiracy, and that it is monolithic cabal run by decree from some mysterious unquestioned authority….

    It isn’t my job to educate you–thank goodness, because you look like a lost cause–but to let the lurkers here know the true quality of your views. Until you come up with something that withstands even the most cursory scrutiny, I am done with you.

    P.S.: I wish there was a way to preview comments before posting them; also, my apologies for the long posts.

  34. harold Says:

    Lee Bowman –

    “What about section 7 of the bill?”

    That’s certainly going to come back and bite them in the a$$.

    I guess you’re a creationist if you even disputed what I said, but I’ll spell it out real simple-like anyway. The posts above prove my point anyway.

    Simply teaching kids that science detects a non-specified “designer” of life, although a grotesque lie, serves no social or political purpose. No-one believes in that. Everyone who believes (claims to believe) in a “designer” thinks they know who the designer is. There is not an honest man, woman, or child on earth who “believes in ID” but doesn’t have a clue who they think the designer is.

    Kids could believe that the designer was Buddha or kindly aliens, or a liberal version of the Christian God. They could still support gay rights, stem cell research, and all those other liberal things. What evolution denying wingnut wants that? None of them.

    The ONLY POSSIBLE motivation for this legislation is a misguided attempt to allow preaching of harsh, right wing, “fundamentalist Christianity” in schools. That’s always the only motivation for creationism in schools. Liberal Christians, Hindus, Native American shamans, Wiccans, etc, are not trying to claim in public schools that science “proves” their religion. They are happy with voluntary adoption of their beliefs by those who so choose.

    The goal here is essentially to tell kids that they have to be repressed and right wing, no matter what they think, or God will punish them. That is always the goal of every effort to shove any kind of creationism into any public schools.

    I suppose that there is also, by this time, a spiteful desire on the part of creationists to harm science in any way they can. Even so, the first time a kid says “My Mom says the designer is the Earth Goddess”, if not before, the tiny minority of teachers who are right wing, authoritarian, and delusional enough not to ignore this crap and teach in the normal way will be screaming “biology proves design, therefore Deuteronomy is literally true and we must execute the homosexuals and vote Republican”! I exaggerate slightly for effect, but that is what it’s all about.

  35. Jason Says:

    Pure science is a valid field of pursuit, however it has been pointed out that it is has “evolved” into mostly a closed system that is all. When conflict between “science” and the “metaphysical” happens you side with the limited perspective of a closed system. However you don’t have all knowledge and to conclude that creationism is not valid should carry a caveat. – According to your system of determining truth (science,fr) you cannot determine if this is true or not – That would be an accurate statement. But you seem to be afraid of those who use their God given ability to determine what the truth is. You have not chosen to use this ability – that is your choice. So when you oppose creationism you have no science to prove your point. As you will see that many teachers will show that there is knowledge above the closed system thus permiting the model of creationism. That is the way I intend to present it in my class.

  36. Ivy Mike Says:

    “So when you oppose creationism you have no science to prove your point. ”

    Really?

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html

    Here’s a hint: ALL science supports evolution, and ALL current science has falsified creationism. Creationism had its shot…it was the (forcibly) dominant hypothesis for thousands of years. Science has destroyed it.

    “That is the way I intend to present it in my class.”

    You will be LYING, and using a position of authority to do so, as well as proseletyze for your religion. Do so in any public school attended by my children and I WILL see you fired. You will richly deserve unemployment.

  37. Jason Says:

    Harold,

    You are partially correct. I cant say for all but for myself. ID is in itself an admission that there is a Creator. Intelligent Design must have a designer. There is no proof that there isn’t a Creator. But through proper observation there is ample evidence that there is a Creator. But those who do not want to believe will deny that there is any evidence because they don’t want to have to submit to their Creator – thence they do not look for evidence (because of motive and not lack of evidence). Our Creator is not wringing his hands over those who deny him. He will in the long run after much patience with those who oppose Him – show them that he is a living and holy God.

  38. Wolfhound Says:

    Jason, when you oppose observational reality you have no science to prove your point, only woo. Hopefully one of the brighter children in your class, if you really are a science teacher (*shudder*), will let their parents know when you start injecting mythology into your syllabus. I have plenty of popcorn ready for the ensuing lawsuit-fueled media frenzy. The supernatural has no place in science. Period.

  39. Jason Says:

    Ivy Mike
    You will never get me fired. I am absolutley positive of that. You are amazing you have the same mind of those who crucified their Creator.

  40. Ivy Mike Says:

    ” But those who do not want to believe will deny that there is any evidence because they don’t want to have to submit to their Creator – thence they do not look for evidence (because of motive and not lack of evidence). Our Creator is not wringing his hands over those who deny him. He will in the long run after much patience with those who oppose Him – show them that he is a living and holy God.”

    Thank you for once again admitting your real motivation…proseletyzing, preaching, and witnessing; using public monies to do so in violation of the Constitution. Of course, this is all you and all your creationist buddies want, and science education be damned.

    Tell you what…teach your OWN kids this claptrap, on your OWN time. I’ll ensure that mine get a sound, rigourous science education that eschews superstitious nonsense.

    When they are grown and employed in lucrative tech or medical fields, they’ll need your kids to serve them at Taco Bell.

  41. BGT Says:

    Jason, I would recommend you visit John Wilkins site, it nicely addresses your “conflict” between religion and science.

    http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2008/04/the_different_epistemologies_o.php

  42. Ivy Mike Says:

    “You will never get me fired. I am absolutley positive of that.”

    Teach your mythology to my kids in place of science, and watch me. I hope your pastor saves some of that collection money to support you in your joblessness, after he pays for his Escalade.

    “You are amazing you have the same mind of those who crucified their Creator.”

    You equate yourself with Jesus, now? Wow, you are a liar, a proseletyzer, AND unbelievably prideful and arrogant.

    Lucky for you, Jesus wasn’t “my creator”. My parents were. it would be quite impossible for a 2,000-year-dead Rabbi (if, indeed, he even existed) to be my “creator”.

  43. Lee Bowman Says:

    J.L. Brown, 12:10 wrote:

    “Science cannot study or comment upon the supernatural for precisely this reason; it cannot be measured, it cannot be quantified, it cannot be tested.”

    Referring to Zoroaster/ Shiva: “How can such entities be identified, and distinguished from each other? The only answer available to science is to say that nothing can be determined with certainty; the supernatural cannot be studied by science.”

    Regarding ‘supernaturality’, yes, if it were outside of the natural universe, unpredictable, and unmeasurable, it is excluded. But what if the purported intervener(s) were not? The term itself is nebulous, conjectural and undefinable.

    Moreover, the evidence for the mechanism of genetic change is now well established to consist of alterations in the ribosome (granted, an over simplification). Further, the method of creation of not just one biologic entity, but all of the preceding ones is embryogenesis, the zygote developing either amiotically, or in uterine. If we accept that that as the sole creative process, where do you get the concept of supernaturality from? It’s merely an assumption.

    And that assumption is the basis for excluding ‘Creation Science’ (with scriptural underpinnings) from study. Fine, agreed, but if a form of genetic engineering that alters species is a viable hypothesis (it can be demonstrated), and if the intervener(s) are unknown, then one cannot assume that the process, if non-naturalistic (with intervention), had to be supernatural. An intelligent agent is not necessarily supernatural.

    Or need we exclude any observed event that is unexplainable by natural causes? Matter from nothing plainly defies all known natural/ material processes. Therefore, the Big Bang is hereby excluded from scientific investigation.

  44. Wolfhound Says:

    Mike, it’s quite possible that, if he’s a teacher, it’s at a private Christian school, in which case those kids’ parents obviously WANT them preached at and kept in the dark regarding the Real World. I have no problem with that since it’s their parents’ choice and their parents’ dollars paying for this nonsense. I do feel badly for their kids but many of them do break the shackles of ignorance once they are at institutes of higher learning that don’t have statements of faith as part of their admissions requirements.

  45. Jason Says:

    Wolfhound,

    Good try. In my district evolution is laughed at. Get plenty of popcorn.

  46. Ivy Mike Says:

    Wolfhound –

    I’m aware of that possibility, which is why I took pains to specify “public” schools in my posts.

    I am an Enlisted man in the Navy, and thus have no spare money to send my kids to private school. I have to deal with the public system, and I am therefore extremely sensitive to the misuse of it that the Jasons of the world wish to perpetrate.

  47. Jason Says:

    Ivey you make the leap in your conclusuions. You obviously make the same leaps in your faith of evolution. By the way our State Constitution acknowledges the existance of God.

  48. Wolfhound Says:

    Yaaaay! Ignorance is highly concentrated in some areas! Who’d a thunk it? I’m guessing, if you live in Florida, it’s one of the inbred rural districts with high poverty and teen birth rates and low literacy and college attendance rates. Ignorance literally breeds ignorance. You go, Jason! :)

  49. Jason Says:

    Ivy,

    You are a minority in the Navy with your views. Having served my country faithfully I can assure you that most in the military have a creationists view.

  50. Ivy Mike Says:

    “In my district evolution is laughed at.”

    I guess they also laugh at college degrees, careers in medicine and high-tech, and jobs that don’t involve changing the oil in pickup trucks, too. Maybe they even find houses that don’t have wheels funny.

    Believe me, son, any public school employing you as a science teacher would fire you in a hot minute rather than pay for a lawsuit or deal with all the fun publicity they’d receive. They’d rather keep the money than one teacher who really wants to be a preacher, anyway.

  51. Jason Says:

    Ivy,

    Are you a scientist ?

  52. Ivy Mike Says:

    “I can assure you that most in the military have a creationists view.”

    Since I CURRENTLY serve, I can assure you that you are woefully incorrect. In fact, a recent study found that 21% of military members describe themselves as “atheist or agnostic”. I bet you served in the Air Force…they’re overrun with fundies, nowadays.

    “By the way our State Constitution acknowledges the existance of God.”

    Yes, it is sad that legislators felt the need to include a myth in a legal document. Such an “acknowlegement” is, however, meaningless.

  53. Wolfhound Says:

    Done feeding the troll. I have to go finished seeing the children on my social work caseload whose parents beat them horribly, beat each other horribly, do drugs, get arrested for felonies (usually violent), cheat on each other, and couldn’t tell you who the fathers are but all wear crosses and go to church on a regular basis. Yes, I happen to live in one of those inbred rural districts myself. Lots of job security, I can tell you!

  54. Ivy Mike Says:

    “Ivy,

    Are you a scientist ?”

    I have a bachelor’s degree in aeronautical science. I also use science and the scientific method on a regular basis in my work. I cannot, however, call myself a “scientist” per se. I have no PHD, nor am I a researcher.

    I am an instructor, though.

  55. Jason Says:

    God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble. You think you are smarter than God. He knows all your vain thoughts. Yet he is still merciful towards you. He created all of you and you refuse him his rightful place. He is the genius in all of this. It is by him all things exist and all things are held together. You promote and anti christian religion. His folly is greater than all of your minds put together. He knows what counts is in the heart. So there will be no excuse for any of you in that Day. You are lifted up in your pride as his archenemy is – thinking you are more clever than he is. You have no clue how the earth was formed – you were not there when man was formed in the dust. You were not there when he spoke the worlds into existance. The problem is that those who think they are clever actually believe they are smarter than the rest. Yet you have no power to create life at all. You cannot create one living thing and yet you say that through the influence of time things change – so all you have to do is add a little time and things will evolve. What then is the catalyst for life to form in the first place ? Lets hear it ? You don’t know. For things created were fromed by those things which are not seen. But they may be known of by man intuitively except when your heart is hardened. You will no doubt get upset at the truth. But it is not the truths fault, its your hardness that is the problem.

  56. Jason Says:

    You may censor me from your site and that is your choice. When Steven told the truth to the Pharisees they held there hands over their ears and didn’t want to hear the truth anymore, then they stoned him to death because they hated the truth. Some of you no doubt feel the same.

  57. Jason Says:

    I have a nephew who got his doctorate the nucleur science field. He graduated with top honors. He is the top operations officer in a nucleur warship at this time. He is a devout christian and understands that evolution is a false science. The great minds of our age all have come to the conclusion that there is a creator. Bill Buckley, Albert Einstein, Blaise Pascal, Luis Pasteur, Etc. all have admitted that there must be an intelligent designer.

  58. Marilyn Says:

    “You will never get me fired. I am absolutley positive of that. You are amazing you have the same mind of those who crucified their Creator.”

    Oooooh–Jason the Martyr, probably a half-step or less from thinking he’s some sort of omniscient Savior of Mankind himself! What all these religious fundamentalist nutcase trolls seem to have in common is an extreme degree of hubris combined with a persecution complex.

    Plus, a total refusal to recognize that there are millions of people who both believe in God (either the Christian version or some other) AND accept the fact of evolution. Science does not concern itself with the supernatural. So what? It’s an easy concept that this does not mean that science claims to disprove the existence of the supernatural–the supernatural is just not the concern of science. Simple as that. Either these people are too stupid to comprehend that distinction, or it is among the millions of facts they MUST ignore because it does not fit with the irrational belief system they use to inflate their egos to bursting. Ironically, I doubt that their prideful, deceitful ways are pleasing to the God they profess to believe in. In fact, the way some of them spout on and on about their own magnificence, I’m surprised they can actually hold the belief that there is a being that is superior to themselves.

  59. Ivy Mike Says:

    Blah, blah, blah….more preaching of mythology, all of it unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. How surprising (not).

    I guess this endless speechifying and ranting is what you guys retreat to when confronted with reason, evidence, and logic. it’s wasted on everyone except your own ego, however.

    Get this…I do not believe in your “god”! I do not believe in any “heaven”, “hell”, or any of your mythology, so your words are as gibberish to me. They are as disjointed and crazed to me as would the rantings of Osama Bin laden or any fire-dancing tribesman would be.

    I’m done with you. Fanaticism like yours is impenetable. Just do NOT attempt to indoctrinate my children, or you WILL lose, and your “god” will not help you, either.

  60. Jason Says:

    Its amazing to see who is the one with Hubris. I acknowldge my total dependance on God. You take it for granted that he has given you breathe and sustains all of you. Yet you are neither thankful but have become vain in your imaginations. Whether God helps me or not is his choice and I doubt you will have any influence in that.
    It’s interesting that you interpolate what I have said into me being a martyr. Another leap of logic. I have said nothing of this. Maybe your conscience is becoming more alive to the truth. That wouldn’t be a bad thing.

  61. Jason Says:

    Ivy,

    I hope your kids havent hardened their hearts like you have. They no doubt have a greater awareness of who God is than you do. You just lost you awareness over time. You just chose early on that you wanted nothing to do with him. I hope and pray they don’t make the same choice. For your children don’t belong to you but God.

  62. Fastlane Says:

    As for the spiritual well being of students in Florida, I, for one, am glad I can finally share the creation of this wondrous planet and share teh glory of Allah with all my young, impressionable students.

    Inshallah.

  63. Marilyn Says:

    “It’s interesting that you interpolate what I have said into me being a martyr. Another leap of logic. I have said nothing of this.”

    It’s interesting that Jason has interpolated what I have said into me being a non-believer. Another leap of logic. I have said nothing of this.

  64. Jason Says:

    Marilyn,

    You are a non believer. God says he created all things in 6 days. You don’t believe him. Hmm , does that make the conclusion of unbeliever justified ? I think so.

  65. Jason Says:

    Fastlane (aka- Tongue In Cheek)

    You are funny. Its good to see some humor in all of this. But your allah is a persecutor of the God of the Jews and of the Christians.

  66. Marilyn Says:

    “Marilyn,

    You are a non believer. God says he created all things in 6 days. You don’t believe him. Hmm , does that make the conclusion of unbeliever justified ? I think so.”

    I admit it makes me an unbeliever in YOUR god, who is merely a trickster. My God gave me an intellect I can trust, and I am smart enough to know that holy books are spiritual guides, not science books. :-)

  67. Jason Says:

    Marilyn,

    A trickster ? Your god is the trickster he influences your God given intellect to the wrong conclusions. For God says the god of this world has blinded the minds of those who don’t believe (in Him). God is the creater of all, he knows true science more than all. Since he is the source of all wisdom nothing is too hard for him. When “science” comes into conflict to his words then “science” has made a wrong conclusion.

  68. Marilyn Says:

    Jason somehow thinks circular thinking will save his soul. Whatever. I’m done with this inane discussion.

  69. Jason Says:

    One of your Holy Books must not be the Bible. For it says “trust in him with all of your heart and don’t lean on your own understanding”. So he didn’t give us a mind to understand all things. He gave us a heart to trust him at his Word. You must admit that none of us knows all things – actually very little. So why not trust God who knows all things to be our guide in evry matter including science. God has given us curiosity to find out and seek who he is. When you look at science from that perspective you then can see his order in all things – which he created.

  70. Jason Says:

    “Jason somehow thinks circular thinking will save his soul.”

    No Marilyn I don’t trust in circular thinking. Just in Christ’s finished work on the cross. His death, burial and resurrection.

    You will hear from me no more for now. Take care :)

  71. Lee Bowman Says:

    Ivy Mike wrote, 5/9 11:46,

    Bowman: “I’ll make a prediction. ID (but not religion) is soon to become considered a valid hypothesis…”

    Mike: “What, it will somehow come up with the supportive evidence from observable reality that has so long eluded it?”

    Neither theory has been completely supported. The method by which complex information has been added is either by ‘happenstance’ (accidental mutation that improves the organism, and is widely enough disseminated in both genders to become fixed in the population), or ‘design and implementation’ (gene tweaking by an intelligence). Neither can be observed directly.

    The overwhelming evidence (phyletic tree/ progression) is actually evidence for either, but the researchers who have accumulated the evidence place it in the Darwinian court. That my friend is biased, subjective reasoning. “I researched it, and it supports my theory only!” The fact that fruit flys never speciated (claims are made that they did), but they still remain drosophila. Computer simulations have also failed thus far, so at this point, RM via NS is falsified.

    Demonstrating either by empirical experiment tends to falsify the other. But not really … Both could be viable. Random mutations are well known to cause adaptive alterations (finches’ beaks, bacterial resistance, skin color). The hand waving consists of dogmatic assertions that alterations beyond species, or of a complexity requiring many incremental alterations, is merely microevolution extended. Not confirmed, although dogmatically shouted from the counter tops.

    Regarding the ‘both’ premise, let me ask the engineers out there who designs a microprocessor, man or machine? Actually both. Current devices have 7 to 10 million transistor junctions, and miles of interconnection pathways only microns wide. Computer mother boards now have seven or more layers! No human mind could lay out one of either in 100 lifetimes, so software is employed, with end points, memory size and structure, bus structure, voltage transition levels, (and more) specified. The software does the grunt work, and a model is constructed and tested.

    Why not a similar method for biologic forms?

    Mike: “It will figure out how it can be falsified? People will somehow forget that ID is repackaged creationism?”

    Creationism has been repackaged (by some Creationists), but ID is not Creationism. They have co-opted the term.

    Example: The principals charged in Kitzmiller v. Dover were not spokespersons for ID, and Buckingham even admitted his ignorance on the subject (it’s in the transcript).

  72. James F Says:

    I just want to cut in here and say Ivy Mike, (1) thank you for your service to our country and (2) as a scientist in academia who (unlike the Discovery Institute) actually has a list of peer-reviewed research papers, including an evolutionary biology paper, you are completely right about ID: it has no testable, falsifiable hypothesis, and fails to qualify as science, let alone as a theory. What it truly is, is a political Trojan horse for creationism.

    “I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world.”

    -Retired law professor Phillip E. Johnson, intellectual godfather of intelligent design

  73. harold Says:

    Jason –

    I don’t have the slightest problem with your religion or your right to live your life as you see fit.

    What I will oppose to my dying day as effectively and vigorously as I can is any attempt to violate the rights of other taxpayers.

    Science class is for science, not for spreading your brand of religion.

    Intelligent Design must have a designer. There is no proof that there isn’t a Creator.

    I have no problem with this. So what?

    But through proper observation there is ample evidence that there is a Creator.

    I don’t know what you mean by “proper observation”, but science cannot address this question.

    But those who do not want to believe will deny that there is any evidence because they don’t want to have to submit to their Creator – thence they do not look for evidence (because of motive and not lack of evidence).

    What a load of bull. First of all, it proves again what I said. You don’t want to “teach intelligent design”, which of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with who the creator is, let alone whether or not the creator “demands submission”. Second of all, your asinine mind reading is wrong. Looks like projection to me.

    Our Creator is not wringing his hands over those who deny him.

    According to you “Conservative Christians”, Jesus got everything wrong. Stupid parable of the prodigal son and all that.

    He will in the long run after much patience with those who oppose Him – show them that he is a living and holy God.

    I strongly support your right to believe and live as you please, but the minute you try to use my tax dollars (or anybody else’s) to violate the same right of others, you’re in a lot of trouble.

    I personally suspect the sincerity of your beliefs. Why do you feel the need to use deception and force to preach your gospel? Why can’t you preach it legally, in a way that doesn’t violate rights?

  74. firemancarl Says:

    Holy shit batman! Have we really been overrun with wooers? Gosh, I was looking through the posts to see if our DLF Larry was gonna post, but with these people posting the same garbage he posts, why would he?

    You IDiots kill me. You want only your brand of religion taught in school and if some kid decides that he really Likes FSM, then what? This IDiotic bill would make FSM a valid alternative and send you wooers screaming “Thats not what we wanted!! *sniff* Only extremist xtian doctrine is allowed!”

  75. S.Scott Says:

    OT – For those of you familiar with Professoe Myers …
    GO NOW! Get ready to LAUGH!!

  76. S.Scott Says:

    Sorry – Should have read “Professor” (I don’t want to give away the punch line)

  77. Philip Bruce Heywood Says:

    David L, if you haven’t done so already, merely press on the link that is my name, and read.
    Your questions are answered there. I see a genius who has visited PANDA’S THUMB has lifted part of one of my entries and presented it to you out of context. If one cares to study history, one discovers that the progress of human understanding, even in the scientific arena, is almost invariably opposed, sometimes with methods that aren’t legitimate.

  78. Captdave Says:

    S.Scott:

    How about one more hint?

    You talkin’ ’bout his 7:29 PM post?

  79. PC-Bash Says:

    Lee Bowman –

    Your entire post is based on personal incredulity.

    The overwhelming evidence (phyletic tree/ progression) is actually evidence for either, but the researchers who have accumulated the evidence place it in the Darwinian court.

    There has been absolutely no evidence provided for a theistic designer. Complexity is not evidence for something that is outside of the bounds of science. Your god is outside of the bounds of science, and can never be confirmed or denied by science. To claim that there is scientific evidence for your god is incredibly ignorant, yet par for the course for IDiots.

    The fact that fruit flys never speciated (claims are made that they did), but they still remain drosophila.

    There are countless examples of speciation in the lab. Botanists have been doing it for years.

    Computer simulations have also failed thus far, so at this point, RM via NS is falsified.

    Wow… you truly have no clue about what you are talking about. You are providing an argument from ignorance, so an expert in this field (me) will need to set you straight. Genetic algorithms are used in Computer Science for solving many things. These algorithms are based entirely on random mutations, cross-breeding, and natural selection. If you do a search on CiteSeer, you will find thousands of case studies proving the viability of genetic algorithms. This is yet another example of personal incredulity, and outright lying by an IDiot.

    Regarding the ‘both’ premise, let me ask the engineers out there who designs a microprocessor, man or machine?

    Definitely man. Here is yet another argument from ignorance.

    Actually both. Current devices have 7 to 10 million transistor junctions, and miles of interconnection pathways only microns wide. Computer mother boards now have seven or more layers!

    Yes, quite interesting, isn’t it?

    No human mind could lay out one of either in 100 lifetimes, so software is employed, with end points, memory size and structure, bus structure, voltage transition levels, (and more) specified. The software does the grunt work, and a model is constructed and tested.

    This software cannot completely synthesize on its own. After the software produces a layout, man years are spent pouring over these layouts, looking for and fixing numerous flaws that the software could never find. The only reason why it doesn’t take physical years between revisions of microprocessors and motherboards is because much of this work can be parallelized between dozens of people. In a word, your analogy is terribly flawed.

    Why not a similar method for biologic forms?

    You mean, besides the fact that there is absolutely no evidence to support this, yet you want to make this asinine concept an axiom of ID?

    Creationism has been repackaged (by some Creationists), but ID is not Creationism. They have co-opted the term.

    Hmm… Let’s see. Creationism requires a creator. ID requires a designer. Looking up the definition of designer in my concise dictionary, I find: “One who creates”. Both “theories” are completely unscientific, and there is absolutely no evidence to support either, period.

    Example: The principals charged in Kitzmiller v. Dover were not spokespersons for ID, and Buckingham even admitted his ignorance on the subject (it’s in the transcript).

    Do you consider the Discovery Institute to be a spokesperson for ID? What about Behe, Dembski, or Meyers? All four of these sources have named the “designer” in multiple instances as no other than the Christian god. In fact, had you bothered to read the full transcripts in the Dover case, you would know this yourself.

  80. PC-Bash Says:

    I’m curious where all of these IDiot trolls are coming from?

  81. PC-Bash Says:

    I do think that point is kind of funny. ID is evidence that creationists are getting “creative”. They have started using a thesaurus. “Gee, we need a different term that won’t get us laughed out of town. Let’s see what we can find in the thesaurus under creator… architect, author, begetter, brain, deity,… no, can’t use any of those… father, founder, framer, generator, initiator, maker, mastermind, originator, patriarch, prime mover, producer, sire, designer… Ah. Designer. That sounds science-y.”

  82. S.Scott Says:

    CaptDave – Yes, LOL!!

  83. James F Says:

    PC-Bash,

    Well, they’re led by guys like this 😈

  84. Jonathan Smith Says:

    How would creationist explain the purpose of this?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7339508.stm

    Some designer!!!

  85. Captdave Says:

    @ PC:

    I figured a dam somewhere upstream must have burst. I’ve been looking at this thread in the Chicago Tribune (over 500 comments) and I thought Larry had shown up there, posing as LJA. They’re everywhere! They’re everywhere!

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/atheist.bashing

    👿

  86. Jason Says:

    Harold you said :
    “I strongly support your right to believe and live as you please, but the minute you try to use my tax dollars (or anybody else’s) to violate the same right of others, you’re in a lot of trouble.”

    Once you pay taxes it is no longer yours. Second what violation of what right ? Thirdly no trouble here. Your threats are funny – I have no fear of you or any of your minions at all – I only fear the Living Creator who made the heavens and the earth in 6 days.

    Next you said:
    I personally suspect the sincerity of your beliefs. Why do you feel the need to use deception and force to preach your gospel? Why can’t you preach it legally, in a way that doesn’t violate rights?

    What deception are you talking about ? I don’t hide my belief in a Creator. Again what rights are being violated ?

  87. Jason Says:

    Bible classes are right around the corner in the Florida public schools. 35 states now have, under rule of law, acquiesced to bible clubs meeting on the school campus. There evolution will be shown for what it really is – a phony theory by those who are unbiblical. Notices can be handed out in schools telling of such meetings. However students will not be forced to go – but many may want to go to biblically refute the unproven theory of evolution.

  88. firemancarl Says:

    Sheesh Jason,

    Why is it your creator and not Zeus? Faith by it’s very nature cannot be proven or else it cannot be faith. The main thing being violated is the establishment clause. You cannot teach one religious line of thinking over others. I am quite sure that you and your fundie brethren would go batshit crazy if the bill was for islamic creationism.

    There is not a valid scientific argument that supports a creator for this planet or this universe.

    Don’t you ever wonder why your god, who got such joy out of killing people for cooking the wrong kind of dirt , and talked to nearly everyone ( OK, so it was all in secret) no longer does anything to show people he’s around?

    As we grow as a people, we can do away with silly ancient cult beliefs and realize that the only thing going on here is us. No gods, no creators.

  89. Manard Says:

    Hey Jason,

    You are so full of baloney. My kids will never learn about your “God”!
    I’d rather teach them about Satan in class before I’d let them learn about your phtoey. Actually I think all those who promote all this crap of religion ought to be sent out of the country to an island to live. You make people feel miserable and supressed. Evolution is obvious. Just look at some of you – some of you still look like monkeys. QED

  90. firemancarl Says:

    Or, we can look at it this way

    “So, science is universal, while religion is rather local. One relies on an epistemology everyone in the world has access to; the other relies on an epistemology that barely works for that religion. To say of all religions that “each is valid” is to assert an absurdity. If each religion is separately valid, and all religions contradict each other, we are way past postmodernist silliness and out the other side into pure fiction and flights of imagination. It basically causes the very idea of knowledge to be degraded to the point that it no longer has the slightest meaning.”

  91. firemancarl Says:

    Or, my other favorite-heed this fundies

    We have heard talk enough. We have listened to all the drowsy, idealess, vapid sermons that we wish to hear. We have read your Bible and the works of your best minds. We have heard your prayers, your solemn groans and your reverential amens. All these amount to less than nothing. We want one fact. We beg at the doors of your churches for just one little fact. We pass our hats along your pews and under your pulpits and implore you for just one fact. We know all about your mouldy wonders and your stale miracles. We want a ‘this year’s fact’. We ask only one. Give us one fact for charity. Your miracles are too ancient. The witnesses have been dead for nearly two thousand years. Their reputation for ‘truth and veracity’ in the neighborhood where they resided is wholly unknown to us. Give us a new miracle, and substantiate it by witnesses who still have the cheerful habit of living this world. Do not send us to Jericho to hear the winding horns, nor put us in the fire with Shadrach, Meshech and Abednego. Do not compel us to navigate the sea with Captain Jonah, nor dine with Mr. Ezekiel. There is no sort of use in sending us fox-hunting with Samson. We have positively lost all interest in that little speech so eloquently delivered by Balaam’s inspired donkey. It is worse than useless to show us fishes with money in their mouths, and call our attention to vast multitudes stuffing themselves with five crackers and two sardines. We demand a new miracle, and we demand it now. Let the church furnish at least one, or forever hold her peace.
    Robert Ingersoll

  92. Jason Says:

    Great comeback Manard ! Who is preaching hate ?

    Fire: You speak with ignorance on the subject of true Christianity. Stick with your fairy tale of evolution. God is bigger than all of us. His way will prevail whether we want it to or not. Your religion of evolution was acted out by the biggest murderer of our time – he said that some elements of the human race was inferior and needed to be eliminated. Who promotes the killing of the unborn ? The promoters of evolutionary thought – if its just a piece of tissue then lets eliminate it for our own selfish reasons.

  93. firemancarl Says:

    Hey Manard,

    Satan sounds like the god of the OT eh? Hey, he doesn’t just kill people and cause their offspring to have horrible diseases, he takes great joy out of killing children. No matter who fracks up, the poor pitiful people of Judea are the ones who pay the price.

    Oh, you know they have no hope and their cause is lost once you read that until there is no mention of Nazareth until the 3rd century CE, go figure, Jebus!, they can’t even get history right!

  94. firemancarl Says:

    We are told that “all things are possible with God,” and yet God cannot boil an egg in cold water.
    [Lemuel K. Washburn, Is The Bible Worth Reading And Other Essays, 1911]

  95. firemancarl Says:

    Your religion of evolution was acted out by the biggest murderer of our time – he said that some elements of the human race was inferior and needed to be eliminated.

    Who was that my friend?

  96. Jason Says:

    Ah Fire … the facts you say. Are you really interested ? There is a multitude of facts. But you will no doubt start to explain all of them away – because you really don’t want to know. There have been those in recent history who have been raised from the dead, many healed from many diseases, the true mount Sinai has been found recorded into evidence. Even the split rock that Moses struck in the middle of the desert. The biggest proof is the hardness of mans heart. God came to win hearts that is the biggest miracle. Many have turned form a life of homosexuality, adultery, drinking, avarice etc. that is the biggest miracle of all. those that do not know God cannot overcome any of these vices in your own strength for any length of time. You just haven’t looked for evidence have you ?

  97. PC-Bash Says:

    Who promotes the killing of the unborn ?

    Ah… so, are you saying your religion is better because your god promoted and actually did kill first borns? It sounds like you want this argument to devolve into which god is more wicked, the Christian god, or some other unnamed strawman god.

  98. Jason Says:

    “Who was that my friend?”

    Don’t know, was he ?

  99. PC-Bash Says:

    There have been those in recent history who have been raised from the dead

    Really? Care to provide a reference in a medical journal that explains how someone was raised from the dead, and how there is no other explanation than your god for it?

    the true mount Sinai has been found recorded into evidence.

    Bullshit. There are several different Sinais that have been found, and none of them are the biblical Sinai (they all conflict with the accounts of Moses et al).

    You just haven’t looked for evidence have you ?

    You just don’t know the definition of objectivity, do you? You are so convinced of your fairy tales, that you are willing to let snake oil salesmen sell you talismans as proof.

  100. PC-Bash Says:

    Jason –

    Your faith blinds you to facts. This faith does not belong in a science classroom.

  101. Jason Says:

    Have you ever thought what happens when your body perishes ? What does it evolve into ?

  102. PC-Bash Says:

    Have you ever thought what happens when your body perishes ? What does it evolve into ?

    No… does that keep you up at night worrying? People who fear death must create an afterlife. Everyone else accepts death as a given and live each day to its fullest.

  103. Jason Says:

    “Really? Care to provide a reference in a medical journal that explains how someone was raised from the dead, and how there is no other explanation than your god for it?”
    http://video.aol.com/video-detail/raised-from-the-deadavi/80714784
    or web search :Daniel Ekechukwu

    “There are several different Sinais that have been found, and none of them are the biblical Sinai (they all conflict with the accounts of Moses et al).”
    This one has no conflict with Moses or any Biblical reference:
    http://www.christiancinema.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=502

  104. Jason Says:

    You gleefully try and dismiss God. One day you will know for sure wont you ?

  105. PC-Bash Says:

    Yeah… you want me to believe a story about resurrection from Nigeria, the home of the Nigerian 419 scam? You will need to provide better evidence than this hoax. I tried googling that name plus hoax, and found nearly as many results as the name alone.

    As for your “mount sinai” I recommend you try googling for “Mountain of Fire”. You will certainly find references to exactly what in the OT conflicts.

    Once again, we are down to no proof of the existence of your god, and no proof for ID.

  106. PC-Bash Says:

    You gleefully try and dismiss God. One day you will know for sure wont you ?

    Actually, I’ll never know. Brain activity shuts down after death, so I would have no opportunity to know that I am right. Sadly, this works in reverse. You will have no opportunity to realize that you are wrong, and that you wasted so much of your life proselytizing and trolling on websites like this one.

  107. firemancarl Says:

    Jason my lad. Please explain who the person was that liked Darwin that was the biggest murderer of our time.

  108. Ivy Mike Says:

    Ah, let Jason continue to troll. Every sermon he spouts is yet more evidence that the last thing in the world he or his compatriots are interested in is science.

    The only thing they truly want is to be allowed to preach, to everyone at all times, especially to children. And they really like the idea of having taxpayers finance it.

    Read his little rants. That’s exactly what he’d teach in school, no matter WHAT class it was.

    Some of them are a bit more subtle, but they all want the exact same thing. Jason simply offers exquisite evidence that they are fanatical, delusional nutcases who shouldn’t be within twenty miles of public schools.

  109. Jason Says:

    Who would you think Fire the Coy?

  110. firemancarl Says:

    I dunno, I am waiting to see who you say it is. You’re the one that posed the question.

  111. firemancarl Says:

    I am hoping that you have a better answer than ‘Hitler”.

  112. Jason Says:

    Hi Ivy. Bless you too !
    Science is just fine as long as it stays away from promoting falsehoods.
    No one here has any eyewitness accounts of your theory at all. A lot of conjecture. Your interpretation of your fossil finds take a great leap of faith to believe. You make up conclusions to fit your preconceived notions. It’s funny how scripture is so true you all prove it all the time. It says that when we condemn someone we are guilty of the same offense. You say I don’t have evidence but you mock it when it is presented to you. You find a couple of bones and make a vast theory out of it – its laughable. There are many eyewitness accounts of the resurrection. In the court of law you need only a handful. You cant even prove you were born without a legal document. It is something to watch you all squirm in your pride. You say that there is a mechanism that makes things evolve – what is this mystery ? What is the catalyst that does this – what hidden cause makes it happen. It would be laughable if it wasn’t so sad. None of you were there thousands of years ago to see if this theory took place. You just guess – and are wrong. You suggest that some force makes life evolve – what force is this ?

  113. Jason Says:

    A cookie for Fire.

  114. firemancarl Says:

    bwwwaaahahahahahahaha dude, if you wanna play, you got to bring it better than that tired old dead horse.

    And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exploited.
    [Adolf Hitler, speech, April 12 1922, published in “New Order”]

  115. Jason Says:

    You base your conclusions on what others tell you or what is published, Yet you yourself have to take it at faith what they tell you is true. Yet when others have eye witness accounts of the miracles – you mock without looking into it. The answer is that you don’t want to know. Just admit it. You don’t want to know about God.

  116. firemancarl Says:

    And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God.
    [Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp.174

  117. firemancarl Says:

    Wowzers Jason! You boy Hitler was a xtian!!!! Damn, who knew that huh?

  118. Jason Says:

    Ah so you believe that Hitler was a Christian. Then I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

  119. firemancarl Says:

    Jason,

    WHo as eyewitness accounts? People that have been dead for over 2000 years? With NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE for their existence? Damn, that’s a great argument!

    Seriously, your bible never mentions the place where jebus comes from ( OT of course) nor is there any HISTORICAL RECORD of such a place before the 3rd century CE.

  120. Jason Says:

    Its not what a man says that makes him what he is. Its what he does. He practised the same mindset as those who believe in evolution – that one species is better than another. The proof is in the action not words alone. I thought you would understand at least this.

  121. firemancarl Says:

    He keeps calling himself on and he never said he was a lover of Darwinian evolution, so…. I guess that leaves just one thing. Hitler was an xtian.

  122. Jason Says:

    Jebus – yes there is no evidence of where Jebus came from.

  123. firemancarl Says:

    He practised the same mindset as those who believe in evolution – that one species is better than another

    That is not what evolution is about nor what it means. I thought you’d know that. However, given your basic lack of knowledge about evolution, I should have not given you the benefit of the doubt.

  124. firemancarl Says:

    Or Jesus.

  125. Jason Says:

    You just proved scripture again Fire. Many will come to me in that day and say Lord Lord look at all the great things I have done in your name …. and I will profess to them I never knew you depart from me you workers of iniquity. I can call myself a building but that doesnt make me one. Come come you know better friend.

  126. Jason Says:

    Which theory of evolution do you espouse then fire ?

  127. firemancarl Says:

    Hey, i’ll just keep giving you documented Hitler quotes. just so you can see he was an xtian fundie too!

    Any violence which does not spring from a spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain. It lacks the stability which can only rest in a fanatical outlook.
    [Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 171]

  128. firemancarl Says:

    I subscribe to the only VALID SCIENTIFIC evolutionary theory.

  129. firemancarl Says:

    Look, no matter what evidence is presented, you and your ilk will continue to turn a blind eye to it and bury your heads in cement. You will accept nothing but false fairy tales of deeds long past from books that are 1000s of years old with dubious origins.

  130. PC-Bash Says:

    There are many eyewitness accounts of the resurrection.

    There are lots of stories of eyewitness accounts, but no actual eyewitness accounts outside of your bible. In fact, even your bible is conflicting. Some stories end with them opening the tomb, finding it empty, and being afraid.

    Then, of course, there is this gem:

    Its not what a man says that makes him what he is. Its what he does. He practised the same mindset as those who believe in evolution – that one species is better than another. The proof is in the action not words alone. I thought you would understand at least this.

    So, essentially, Jason is contradicting himself.

  131. Jason Says:

    You obviously havent read your Bible, son. You would indeed see he was not a Christian. He actually was a man of hate who hated the Jews. Jesus was Jewish and the Christian faith does not say to kill Jews. You do err again friend.

  132. Jason Says:

    You prove scripture also. God sends a delusion to those who have chosen not to believe the truth that they might believe a lie. (evolution)

  133. Jason Says:

    You are your own worst enemy. You pride yourself in mental gymnastics. (sophistry)But he who made your mind can also confound even you with what you call foolishness. God is so clever that he makes the “elemental” things of this world confound the “wise” of this world. He will have you in derision. Which is already evident.

  134. Jason Says:

    You just don’t want to humble yourself before God Almighty. He requires true humility. He uses the base things of this world to confound those who are lifted up in the pride of their own mind – thinking they are more clever than He is. They mock at what they call simplicity, but God is so clever he weeds out those who have the same tendencies as the fallen one by making one humble themselves and forsake their puffy mind and obey his prompting in the heart. Our heart resists truth -our mind then justifies our self aggrandizements. It takes humility to understand God. Man in his pride thinks he can out think Him. The Holy Spirit convicts the heart that one is a sinner. The mind has not the ability to discern spiritual truth alone. It is with the heart man believes and then his mind conforms to his understanding of this. You always resist God’s voice speaking to your heart, so you will never be able to fully understand.

  135. Jason Says:

    Well thanks for the jousting fun. Have to go – later guys. :)

  136. PC-Bash Says:

    You would indeed see he was not a Christian. He actually was a man of hate who hated the Jews. Jesus was Jewish and the Christian faith does not say to kill Jews.

    You mean… like the god in the OT who exterminated entire races of people? You obviously have not read your own bible. Read up on the Hittites. Hitler may have had a Messiah complex, but it was your Messiah that led to his complex.

    He will have you in derision.

    What an odd god you worship…

    I won’t even get into your inane sermon, which has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with anti-science (faith).

  137. Jason Says:

    Lol you are fun PC. Do you think terrorists should be eliminated ?

  138. firemancarl Says:

    I’ll answer, Jason.

    Yes, they break the law and kill innocent men , women and children.

  139. firemancarl Says:

    If you are going to compare modern terrorists with ancient races of people, then you are making a huge stretch there.

  140. Jason Says:

    Evolution is on the out. The schools will have to let in ID and it looks like you will not be able to stop it. Thats life friend. Don’t be afraid. If you think you have a better explanation on the origins of man let it be discussed in the classroom. What are you afraid of ? Let the arguments stand on their own merits. One a closed system the other an open system. The Russians tried to teach that God was non existant, but they failed and their system failed. Now true Christainity is allowed to flourish there.

  141. Jonathan Smith Says:

    Jason,

    After several days of reading your posts it’s rather obvious, but unfortunate, that you have a notable array of shortcomings including a failure to listen very well, a strong propensity to belabor points that have already been answered, a tendency to uncritically parrot answers learned in Bible class and/or church, a deceptive and dishonest inclination to build strawmen for appearances sake. You hear what you want to hear,and posses a lamentable lack of comprehension of the overall imbroglio in which you find yourself.You’re not really interested in objective scholarship and a comprehensive discussion of evolution as much as forcing others to say uncle on any point.Much of your malediction is little more than opinions and conjectures based on an offended religious ego. Please leave the world of glittering generalities and mini sermons and present specific evidence.
    Also, in answer to your last postings,I am happy to say you are wrong on all counts. I am not looking to the Bible for salvation in Christ because it isn’t God’s word and Jesus isn’t my Savior; and like you I am not proving my own convictions. I accept facts, evidence, documentation and information,items that seem to elude your mindset.

  142. harold Says:

    Jason –

    One final post.

    Once you pay taxes it is no longer yours.

    Change “my tax dollars” to “tax dollars”. Doesn’t change a thing.

    Second what violation of what right ?

    Okay, I’ll actually bother to explain. If a teacher in public school tells your kids that science proves that Hinduism is correct and Christianity is wrong, your rights have been violated. Now reverse Hinduism and Christianity. Same thing. Under the US constitution, everyone has a right to worship as they please. Any government favoritism of one religion over another, or over absence of religion, violates everyone’s rights.

    I guess you can’t get it, but the way to safeguard your right to worship as you choose is to respect the right of others to do so as well.

    Thirdly no trouble here. Your threats are funny

    I am not trying to threaten anyone, but I present it as a fact that if a teacher in Florida (or Alaska or any other state) tries to preach sectarian religion and call it “science”, there will be legal consequences.

    – I have no fear of you or any of your minions at all –

    I have no minions. You have no reason to fear me personally. I doubt that you are in a position to influence what is taught in a public school science classroom at any rate. If you are, and you teach sectarian religion in science class, then you will appropriately run into a lawsuit.

    I only fear the Living Creator who made the heavens and the earth in 6 days.

    I don’t agree with young earth creationism myself, but again, I strongly support your right to practice your religion as you see fit. That is not the issue here. Why do you think it is?

  143. Wolfhound Says:

    Jeez, I go away and this nutjob is still here preaching? Jason, this is a site about Science. You know, the thing you don’t acknowledge if it goes against your mythology. None of us are impressed by your fire n’ brimstone nonsense. It’s a safe bet that most of us here were brainwashed into your cult as children but had intelligence high enough to realize that it was utter bullocks once we were allowed to think for ourselves. Nobody’s buying your crap. We’ll never convince you that you’re living a lie based on a bunch of fairy tales written down by ignorant, savage Bronze Age goatherders to control the masses. You’ll never convince us that your nonsense has any merit whatsoever. Now, do carry on with keeping children mired in the Dark Ages and please tell us what school you teach at so that we can get your ass fired for breaking the law. I doubt that your god could save you if Americans United or the ACLU sunk their teeth into you. :)

  144. Jason Says:

    Bless all of you ! You can’t hear what I say because of the hardness of your hearts. I wouldn’t mind answering you all one on one but you wouldnt listen. So I think it is time to move on. You are without excuse. When you get to the end of your life and all that you care for will be tied up in your pride and arrogance – its a shame you reject the Good News. If you will see this post in your judgement it will be too late. Sorry to bother you with the truth.

  145. MaryB Says:

    Wow – I am on Spring Break cleaning house and last time I looked there were 8 comments.

    About the spiritual welfare of my students. I am teaching science which is about understanding the physical world not about belief. My 12 year olds can understand this difference – its part of the nature of science. Look at our new standards and you will see it spelled out under Nature of Science. I tell my classes that scientific theories are like tools for building things and defending ourselves against the material world. So they are important but who “believes” in a hammer or gravity or evolution? (I don’t but I do understand them and think they are very important to my survival and prosperity) I also tell them that I have a deep respect for their right under the constitution to pursue their own personal religious beliefs and that those beliefs are very important in deciding what we should do with the tools of science. After all a hammer can be used to build a house for protection or you can knock someone on the head with it and kill or injure them. Its what you believe is right that guides that hammer just like our values and beliefs decide whether we use evolution to build vaccines to save lives or biological weapons to do the opposite. I also tell them that their future will include a lot of important decisions that they will have to make about tools like evolution based on their beliefs. I am a religious person myself and so I sit in the middle and watch this debate go on. And remember when you get rude to the other side of this debate many of your children must go back and forth between church and school science class and it is easier for them to cross that divide if the adults on each side can be civil to each other.

  146. Jason Says:

    As for your threats Wolf. Puff all you want your threats bother me not at all actually I find you amusing. I will be breaking no law teaching your children the truth. Besides the constitution of Florida acknowledges Gods existence and they will just have to learn that. Or is it unconstitutional to learn the constitution ? LOL

  147. PC-Bash Says:

    Jason –

    Sorry to bother you with the truth.

    Funny thing about truth. It has evidence to support it. You have been asked repeatedly to provide evidence, and you cannot. You would fail as a science student, as you should.

  148. PC-Bash Says:

    I will be breaking no law teaching your children the truth.

    Truth according to what evidence, precisely?