Release: Response to today’s vote

The following was sent out to the media today:

Response to today’s House vote passing the deceptively named “academic freedom” bill.

April 28, 2008
Contact: Brandon Haught, Florida Citizens for Science
bhaught@flascience.org / www.flascience.org / (Media Page available)

Rep. D. Alan Hays wants to know what people are afraid of when they stand in opposition to his deceptively named “academic freedom” bill.

We are afraid of the stunting effect this legislation will have on science education, as students will be exposed to old, discredited arguments against evolution that have their roots in religious protestations against that science, and be misled into thinking those arguments have the same weight as the real scientific findings. This will hamper their ability to succeed in the scientific field in college and beyond. Florida public school teachers are given free reign by Hays’ bill to espouse personal belief dressed up to look like science, and, whether intentionally or not, confuse students as to what science actually does and says.

We are afraid of the corruption of the very phrase “critical analysis,” using it as a political sledgehammer, no different than wrapping oneself in an American flag and denouncing anyone opposed to your personal ideas as unpatriotic.

We are afraid of people like Rep. Hays, who clearly demonstrate a profound ignorance of science and yet propose laws to regulate that subject.

We are afraid that a Florida school district will face a legal fight that will cost millions of wasted taxpayer dollars, exactly like what happened during a 2005 high profile court case in Dover, Pa. It should be noted that the idea of intelligent design was deceptively passed off in public schools then as scientific, but was later proven to be just the opposite.

Yes, Rep. Hays, we are afraid. But not for the reasons you claim.

# # #

169 Responses to “Release: Response to today’s vote”

  1. James F Says:

    Bravo, Brandon!

  2. Robert Says:

    Hooray for the House !!

  3. Kathy S Says:

    This is brilliant, Brandon!!

  4. Green Earth Says:

    Brandon- we love you- great job!

  5. Reginald Says:

    Very well put. I actually watched Inherit the Wind last night, and got to thinking “We’re actually still fighting this to this day.”

    It’s unbelievable.

  6. PatrickHenry Says:

    I’m afraid that kids will be flunked by incompetent teachers for not knowing the “science” of Noah’s Ark. I’m afraid of a rising generation that doesn’t know myth from reality. I’m afraid that people like Hays and Storms will — little by little — re-establish theocracy. And I’m truly afraid that the nightmare days of the Salem witch trials may return to this once-free nation.

  7. grafixer Says:

    Brandon… “Here, here!”
    I am afraid too. I am afraid that our officials are so ignorant about the situation that they don’t see it coming, or they are using Florida’s science education arena to pull the extremist vote for a McCain/Crist ticket. Either way, it is the beginning of a move away from democracy and toward a theocracy for our country.

  8. James F Says:

    Reginald,

    It’s so true:

    “May it not suffice for me to say…that of course, like every other man of intelligence and education, I do believe in organic evolution. It surprises me that at this late date such questions should be raised.”
    -President Woodrow Wilson, 1922

  9. Green Earth Says:

    I wonder if Crist will sign it to gain votes in the case he is the VP nominee

  10. Mike O'Risal Says:

    I wonder what the Max Planck Institute people are thinking about this, seeing as they were supposed to open a center in Florida to do research on techniques and equipment for use in evolutionary biology research. If I were them, I’d pull out of the deal and go somewhere they were guaranteed an educated workforce and not the possibility of angry mobs with pitchforks and torches. If I were them, I’d be very concerned with putting any investment into Florida with the leadership it has these days.

    I’m also glad personally that I don’t live there anymore. I’d hate to think that I was contributing any sort of support to a bunch of underhanded religious fanatics bent on propping up a creaking and outmoded theology at the expense of science and progress.

  11. Green Earth Says:

    I’m happy to be moving out of state soon for graduate school- don’t know if I will want to come back.

  12. John M. Says:

    You talk about “science” as if you are the arbiter of what science is, what science says, and what science does. In fact, there are a lot of questions about macro-evolution which have placed in doubt the theory of evolution as Darwin explained it. In fact, real scientists have REAL doubts. 700 of them signed on to this statement: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged” (see web link)

    Before you dogmatically explain what is and is not “science”, I suggest you spend some time critically investigating the claims of both sides. Set aside your arrogance for awhile — you might just learn something.

  13. James F Says:

    So far, they’ve published no data. Let them work through peer-reviewed research, like every scientist does. No one gets a free pass to have their untested ideas taught in the science curriculum.

    Besides, we have 877 Steves, so there!

    http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp

  14. Mike O'Risal Says:

    No, John M, there are no such questions except those voiced by people who don’t know what they’re talking about. That list of 700 names is not just a minuscule number, most of them aren’t biologists and a good number of them are computer scientists and the like.

    All you’ve got there, John M, is another repetition of the same old fraudulent canard. Actual scientists, myself included, don’t buy it and never have. The controversy is a manufactured one created entirely by fundamentally dishonest, conniving people — such as yourself — to intentionally mislead those who are not equipped with expertise in this area by giving them deceptively simple sound bytes that explain precisely nothing.

    But hey, if Floridians don’t mind acting like a bunch of stereotypical gap-toothed ignorami by allowing themselves to be led around by the nose by people such as yourself, who am I to complain? More employment in real-world science for those who aren’t unfortunate enough to be educated in the State of Ignorance.

  15. John M. Says:

    James, actually there is a lot of data contained in peer reviewed articles and books from scientists who have become skeptical of the Darwinian claims. This research is recent and takes into account discoveries that were unknown at the time of Darwin (i.e. the cell structure). I will give you two peer reviewed works to look at (but there are plenty more for whoever wants to spend the time to do the research): 1) W.A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). He provides a mathematical model for design. 2) D. A. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341 (2004): 1295–1315.

  16. S.Scott Says:

    Can someone explain to him what “peer reviewed” means please?

  17. Mike O'Risal Says:

    Dembski isn’t a scientist; he’s a second-rate mathematician at best, and his inference filter has been thoroughly shredded by any number of mathematicians who are good enough at what they do to get tenured posts outside of seminaries. Nobody has yet been able to actually apply Dembski’s “inference filter,” not even the people who believe in it.

    As far as Axe’s paper, the mechanisms that he claims as problematic in terms of evolutionary theory without supernatural intervention simply aren’t. All that’s implied is a constraint upon the evolution of new protein folding domains. Not exactly ground-shaking news. In fact, it’s predicted by evolutionary theory. I work on the evolution of one particular class of enzymes myself (family 18 glucosyl hydrolases). Nothing in Axe’s paper is even a little bit surprising in terms of how genes undergo duplication and diversification.

    See, John M, your basic problem is, again, that you’re ignorant of the subjects upon which you speak.

  18. John M. Says:

    Mike, in terms of Dr. Axe, his peer reviewed data found that functional protein folds are extremely rare, finding that, “roughly one in 1,064 signature-consistent sequences forms a working domain” and that the “overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 1077.” He concluded that “functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences.”

    Since Darwinian evolution only preserves biological structures which confer a functional advantage, this indicates it would be very difficult for such a blind mechanism to produce functional protein folds. This research also shows that there are high levels of specified complexity in enzymes, a hallmark indicator of intelligent design. Dr. Axe himself confirmed that this study adds to the evidence for intelligent design: “In the 2004 paper I reported experimental data used to put a number on the rarity of sequences expected to form working enzymes. The reported figure is less than one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. Again, yes, this finding does seem to call into question the adequacy of chance, and that certainly adds to the case for intelligent design.”

    In terms of Dr. Dembski, his work was published by Cambridge University Press and peer-reviewed as part of a distinguished monograph series, Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory. The reviewers of that series includes members of the National Academy of Sciences as well as one Nobel laureate, Dr. John Harsanyi. So, unless you want to also call into question the credentials of Dr Harsanyi, Dr. Paul Davies and other members of the NAS review board, I will accept the work that Dr. Dembski presented. His mathematical case to quantify design is indeed very compelling.

  19. Joe Meert Says:

    http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/05/dembskis-mathem.html

    Pretty impressive? Well, not really.

    Cheers

    Joe Meert

  20. Wolfhound Says:

    John M, Dembski’s “case” is only compelling to those who are predisposed to religious nonsense and are desperately grasping for something “sciency” sounding to help prop up their irrational beliefs. The gaps your god can hide in are becoming smaller and smaller. :)

  21. John M. Says:

    Wolfhound, spoken like a true Darwinian scientist. If you can’t attack the opposing view’s science, attack them personnally. ;-)

  22. Mike O'Risal Says:

    John M, again, ignorance rears its head. Axe isn’t accurate in what he’s saying because the odds he gives are only those for the VERY FIRST protein domain that would have had to occur. Once that has happened, the odds for new and functional domains decreases exponentially. In short, it doesn’t work that way. In fact, considering how frequently SNPs occur in coding sequences that don’t code for active sites in a finished protein, his calculations are actually off by a wide margin. Even his “1 in 1064″ number is only relevant if we consider SOLELY conserved binding sites and exclude linking domains entirely.

    And again, show me one instance where anyone, even Dembski, has been able to apply his inference filter. In fact, Dembski’s work has been shredded by, among others, one of the people whose previous work Dembski appropriated in concocting his cockamamy claptrap: David Wolpert.

    So if Dembski had managed to use the geometry of induction properly to quantify that some search algorithm occurring in the biological world had, somehow, worked better than all but the fraction 10^{-50} (say) of alternative algorithms, then there would be a major mystery concerning the modern biological mantra. This would be true regardless of whether neo-Darwinists had performed the proper rituals in settling on that mantra.

    However, Dembski does not do this…

    Dembski’s entire theory is based on fallacious logic and unsound principles. It’s junk. You’ll go on believing it, of course, because you’re no more honest with yourself than you are with anyone else, but the fact is that Dembski’s work has never been applied nor even accepted by anyone, not even other mathematicians. Then again, you started out calling him a scientist, even though he’s never done one bit of science in his life, so I don’t expect that you’ll get the difference here.

  23. James F Says:

    I’m quite familiar with the Discovery Institute’s publications. Adding on to what Mike and others have said, Discovery Institute members are certainly free to publish their philosophical ideas in books (e.g., Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box) and book chapters, but these are not peer-reviewed scientific research papers.

    Axe is free to speculate about the significance of his work, but the actual paper (which really is a peer-reviewed paper, unlike Dembski’s works) didn’t invoke intelligent design.

    How does it compare to literature supporting evolution? Searching the National Library of Medicine with “evolution” as a major subject heading (admittedly an underestimate) gives about 102,800 peer-reviewed scientific research articles (not counting literature reviews). The ID supporters need to get one paper that actually argues their case with the data. And people want this taught as a scientific theory?

  24. John M Says:

    James, you said that there were no peer reviewed research from scientists questioning the Darwinian claims, and I have given you two examples of peer reviewed work (there is much more).

    Now, you can dismiss the research or do like Mike O’Risal and make it up as you go along, but the point here is that there is real doubt and debate within the scientific community over the claims made by Darwin. Obviously, micro-evolution exists. No one disputes that. However, there is genuine skepticism of the macro-evolutionary claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life

    Why suppress this debate or the opportunity for students to learn about this debate? What are you afraid of – learning something yourself? I am not so smug that I assume I have all the answers. I want to be exposed to both sides and not have my opportunity to learn be suppressed.

    PS Mathematics is a science according to reknowned Harvard mathematician Dr. Benjamin Peirce, describing mathematics as “the science that draws necessary conclusions”. Indeed, mathematics is very important in modeling physical and biological processes that are important to any understanding of these questions on the origin of species.

  25. S.Scott Says:

    Are you trying to suggest that a mathemetician is the peer of a biologist?

  26. Joe Meert Says:

    The tempo at which it occurs, the mechanism by which evolution takes place, the influence of environmental factors on evolution, the cause of the major extinctions in earth history etc etc. All of these are controversial aspects of evolutionary theory and are debated vigorously by scientists around the globe. The only thing that is no longer debated (by scientists) is whether or evolution has taken place. Evolution is observable, repeatable and offers both useful predictions and retrodictions such that the arguments (amongst scientists) are about modes and tempos. Only zealots with socio-political agendas argue about whether or not evolution has taken place. Since John M. loves disco so much, he might take heed of Disco fellow Behe who admits that evolution has taken place over geologic time. Behe simply thinks that God intervenes when a flagellum is needed or a misfunctioning blood-clotting cascade is important. Behe feels that his intelligent designer is pretty good (even though he/she/it has a 99% failure rate).

    Cheers

    Joe Meert

  27. Wolfhound Says:

    Why, John, I most certainly did NOT attack you personally in my previous post! Now, if I had said that you, John, are a religiously motivated imbecile, THAT would be a personal attack. ;)

  28. Mike O'Risal Says:

    John M is now officially an idiot. Not just an IDiot, but a true idiot.

    No, John, I’m not “making it up as I go along.” You have no response and so you make a very, very stupid accusation. This is basic stuff. You’ve got not a whit of context in which to understand Axe’s paper. You’re simply parroting what someone else has told you to repeat. You’re a very good example of what the future holds for the students of Florida should Neocreationists manage to ram through their thinly-veiled agenda of destroying science.

    I note that you don’t address a single point that I raised. You won’t. I work with this stuff. But please, feel free to tell me about all the investigation you’ve done on the evolution of proteins. Explain why linking domains would be constrained by anything that Axe has written in the paper you cite and so why I must be “making it up.”

    And mathematics isn’t a science in the way that any of the physical sciences are. Yes, mathematics are important to the understanding of science. So is the ability to write, but grammar isn’t a science, either.

    All John does is make arguments from authority. “He said this.” “He said that.” You shouldn’t be smug about having all the answers, John, because not only do you not have any answers, you don’t even know what the questions are. That alone is the controversy that is being sought to inject into Florida’s public educational system.

  29. James F Says:

    John,

    No, I said they’ve published no data in peer-reviewed research publications, and to make it clear I specified exactly what I mean: peer-reviewed scientific research papers. I’m familiar with the DI list; it’s a very short list made up of books and book chapters, literature reviews, and papers that don’t provide data in support of intelligent design. That’s not even close to a body of research, let alone a scientific theory – it’s like arguing that Holocaust denial deserves equal time in history class. But ID will never produce scientific research, since it’s based on supernatural causation. ID can be discussed in the context of theology and philosophy, or current events, but – like alchemy and astrology – it is not science.

  30. Jonathan Smith Says:

    ” However, there is genuine skepticism of the macro-evolutionary claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life”
    If there is “genuine skepticism ” it’s only in the mind of the creationists.
    Macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite the differences, evolution at both levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change.
    If macroevolution is not responsible for species change, what was,(and is)and where is your evidence for the process?

  31. John M Says:

    Mike, I am saying you are making it up as you go along because you don’t have a valid argument or research (or, quite frankly, the credentials) to dispute Dr. Axe’s work. I am open to rebuttal of his work, so if you have truly done the research and truly understand what you are talking about then send it in to the Journal of Molecular Biology, have it peer reviewed and let it stand on its own.

    Good luck!

  32. Eric Perlman Says:

    Mike,

    I fully agree with you as far as most of your points. From my point of view as a fellow scientist, you’ve totally dismantled John M’s arguments. The only thing I disagree with you is regarding mathematics as a science. We need to be correct about what we say here, and dismissing mathematics as a science is just plain wrong. It is both necessary to understand and express science as well as a science in its own right. Would you argue that the efforts to prove Fermat’s last theorem weren’t research fully equal to any in biology or my own field of astrophysics? I certainly wouldn’t.

  33. S.Scott Says:

    Mike O’Risal ABSOLUTELY knows what he is talking about! My guess John, is that you are probably in a profession that requires you ask people ” Do you want fries with that ?”

    P.S. – If you think that’s rude – go look at the last comment you made.

  34. Mike O'Risal Says:

    John, you’ve now made your ignorance so abundantly clear that I couldn’t do a better job than you have.

    If I sent the results of an experiment confirming what I’ve said to a journal for publication, they’d laugh — not because it’s wrong, but because it’s one of the fundamental principles of molecular evolution, and has already been demonstrated thousands of times over! This is a basic principle, not some novel research. There are hundreds of peer-reviewed papers published every single year based on this. In fact, if you’d ever read anything from the Journal of Molecular Biology other than the one paper you know of because somebody else told you about it, you’d already know that. Since you don’t, however, you’ve demonstrated not only your ignorance of molecular biology as a whole, you’ve shown that you aren’t even familiar with the literature published by a single journal.

    There’s so much material based on this, in fact, that its hard to even know where to begin citing examples. This is so basic, though, such a fundamental principle, that perhaps this will suffice:

    Graur, D. and Li, W-H (2000). Fundamentals of Molecular Evolution, 2nd edition. Sinauer Associates. ISBN 0-87893-266-6

    Go buy a copy on Amazon and read it. Maybe then you’ll have a clue about this stuff, because it’s abundantly obvious that you don’t know the first thing you’re talking about.

  35. Zane Says:

    Here ! Here! John M.

  36. Zane Says:

    John, You must understand that their life view will always demand they choose anything but that which has any inkling of organized intelligent design. Their whole mindset is closed to any possibility to an underlying intelligence. So they must come up with theories and postulations that sound good on the surface to prove their point. They already have their mind made up no matter what evidence you show them. Even if their creator showed up in front of them they would deny it was him even though he would perform miracles in front of them. Hey wait, this already happened. Its just happening again in our day. If they were honest they would be open to all possibilities and then examine if it “fit’s the bill”. But many here have looked and didn’t want to acknowledge what they found (because it might affect their lifestyle) therefore they use all their energies to suppress the truth in lengthy, formulated and intricate models to sound like they know what they are talking about. However the tide is turning and we will see the truth prevail !!

  37. Mike O'Risal Says:

    Good news, Zane. The truth has already prevailed. It’s called evolutionary biology. It’s even been empirically tested and supported by every new line of evidence for the past 150 years.

    As yet, no evidence has been found for the involvement of any supernatural or extraterrestrial entity. Aside from a bunch of arguments from authority and/or ignorance, nothing. Crickets chirping. Wind whistling through the emptiness. Zero evidence of anything other than physical laws at work.

    You don’t know what the evidence is, Zane. In fact, you clearly don’t know what evidence itself is.

    But the nice thing about the Internet is that whatever crackpot theory you embrace, you can always find another crackpot to agree with and affirm it. Here, you and John M have found one another.

  38. Green Earth Says:

    Funny, because Zane’s arguments sounds exactly like what ID/creation pushers do- you already have your mind made up and are looking for evidence to support your conclusion. Any scientific, hypothesis-based evidence that does not agree with your theory you ignore. Calling people close-minded because they support science and do not want religion in science (especially public school science) is, well, IDiotic.

    As Mike said, I’m glad you and John M have found each other- you can go bash real science, mounds of evidence for evolution and our supposed closed minds together- have fun!

  39. John M. Says:

    Mike, Dr. Axe published his peer reviewed research in the Journal of Molecular Biology. He specified the rarity of functional protein folds as roughly one in 1,064 signature-consistent sequences forms a working domain. You disputed this by saying he isn’t accurate and his calculations were off by a wide margin. Have you written a letter to the Journal of Molecular Biology with your concerns? Have you published your own peer reviewed research backing up your assertions? Until you do, let the real science stand, and so far that science favors Dr. Axe’s peer reviewed, published research.

    Zane,
    Thank you for your note. I found it laughable that these Darwinsts can not even agree on what a science is (see Eric Perlman’s note above). If they can not even agree on such a BASIC fundamental question as that, they have no leg to stand on when trying to dictate science education in Florida’s public schools.

  40. Mike O'Risal Says:

    John M,

    No, I haven’t written a letter. There’s no reason for me to do so. In the years since Axe wrote his paper, it has been cited in exactly five subsequent publications, none of which make any claims about supernatural causation of otherwise contradict what we know about molecular evolution in proteins. Moreover, other scientists have already pointed out the flaws in Axe’s statistical work. There’s no reason for me to do it, in other words, because it has already been done. All of which contradicts your assertion that Axe’s research is the “real science,” particularly in terms of offering any contradiction whatsoever to evolutionary biology.

    Tell me, what other papers have your read from the Journal of Molecular Biology? What else have you read about molecular biology in general or about protein domains and their conservation in general? Your defensiveness about Axe’s paper is very telling; it appears to me that you have no context and so take it as some kind of gospel.

    I have just gotten finished writing a review paper in which I take two researchers to task for making some unfounded speculations about the role of group I introns in maintaining endosymbiosis. You don’t seem to understand that doing that doesn’t negate all of their work and require that I write a letter to the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution demanding a retraction. This is how science works; making an assertion isn’t enough. It has to be viewed in context and tested. Axe’s assertions fall short on several fronts.

    I’ve read Axe’s paper and commented on it in light of what’s known about the evolution of proteins. I have subsequently pointed you toward material to give you a grasp on the subject so that you can also get some idea of the basis upon which Axe’s work can be justifiably criticized. For all of the nonsensical bleatings of ID crackpots about having an open mind, I note that they never follow up on such pointers; they simply keep repeating the same tired arguments and hoping to fnd more ignorant individuals to listen to them.

    I suspect that you will do the same. I suspect that the sum total of published papers on molecular biology that you have read is exactly one and that you have not, and will not, bother to educate yourself on the fundamental principles of the science because, as is the case with I Neocreationists as a whole, yours is not a scientific but a political and religious objection to evolutionary biology.

    Have you ordered that copy of “Fundamentals of Molecular Evolution” yet? Plan on doing so?

  41. Zane Says:

    Mike, you are a very closed minded person, I feel for you. You do not use all of the evidence given to man to make your determinations. You haven’t even considered anything that is outside your closed system of thought. Your lack of moral perception in determining your motives is astounding. You build a wall around your closed thought patterns and don’t let any reason beyond your “set rules” to enter. The same thought patterns existed in many cultures through history. Eugenics, using the Darwinian model of thought, would rule the day if it were not for the prevailing moral thought. You need a balance in your thinking. When you leave out the “whole being” you leave out part of the “spark” that was used to create us. You get to the point that your err and don’t even see it – that is what is scary. Your value for human life wanes therefore your moral thinking needs to be reinvigorated. You don’t even see that your motive predetermines your outcomes. It obviously blinds you. I’ve worked in the business world for over 32 years and have seen many business theories purported to be proven fall apart with time. But all it’s adherents were sure of its success. However because of their moral failures the consequences of their success were financial ruin. They thought they had all the answers but lacked in the total thought process. The “variable” in the equation of thought were left out and thus failure. I have nothing but heart felt sympathy for you .

  42. Zane Says:

    Very true John !

  43. Jonathan Smith Says:

    John M
    If you assume that all evidence for macroevolution is invalid then provide an alternative hypothosis,if you would suggest that “god did it” then please show me the impericle,testifiable falsifiable evidence to support your position.This would include the exact manner in which God created
    and then his implementation in creation: note,.debunking evolution does not count as evidence in your favor,if evolution is wrong it does not follow that your theory(goddidit) is true by default.

  44. Mike O'Risal Says:

    Zane,

    Nothing you’ve said has anything to do with molecular biology or the evolution of protein domains. It’s all the same tired nonsense.

    If you have nothing to say on the matter under discussion, you’d do well to heed the words of a very wise man:

    “Shut up and go away.”

  45. Zane Says:

    Mike you just proved my point.

  46. Green Earth Says:

    John- the only thing Eric said was that he considers math to be a science, math is also considered a language- what’s your point? Is that your argument as to how science is close minded, because people had differing views as to the category in which math belongs?

  47. S.Scott Says:

    Zane said:

    You build a wall around your closed thought patterns and don’t let any reason beyond your “set rules” to enter

    Well, DUH!!!! Science IS restricted! It has rules! Anything outside of those rules is not science! That’s when it becomes philosophy or “whatever”.

  48. Zane Says:

    Wow SScott. Yes and should be restricted to the point it errs. You don’t use checks and balances given to weigh your conclusions. The point being is that you skew your thought process by immediatley dumping the idea of any intelligent design. So you conclude before you begin and thus shape all of your ideas from this basis. Nothing that would be shown you would change your mind. You should welcome other critical thought. Its interesting that usually if you see an ugly hair style you immediately see it for what it is. But the mind is so powerful you could probably convince some that it is a beautiful one with your contorted reasonings and actually believe it yourself.

  49. John M. Says:

    Mike, you state that other scientists have already pointed out the flaws in Dr. Axe’s work, yet you cite no references nor do you state the nature of those flaws and whether they invalidate Dr. Axe’s finding on the rarity of functional protein folds and their requirement for highly extraordinary sequences. This finding led Dr. Axe to call into question “the adequacy of chance, and that certainly adds to the case for intelligent design.”

    Darwinian evolution increasingly resembles the old Ptolemaic picture of the universe, in which all the planets revolved around a stationary earth. Over the years those committed to it on the basis of faith in biblical authority adjusted the model to account for new evidence, until finally the evidence against the model became so overwhelming that its core assumption, a central stationary earth, had to be discarded. A new instrument, the telescope, provided the new evidence that did in the geocentric cosmos. So too today; new observational instruments have revealed the biochemical and genetic bases of life whose remarkably intricate complexity challenge the Darwinian picture of gradually accumulated random changes.

    Proteins, as we have been discussing, must “fold” into a particular shape before they can perform a function in the cell. But as Roland F. Hirsch observes, “This folding process is possible only because it is guided. A process of folding in which the protein chain bends entirely in random ways could not achieve the functional fold of that protein in any useful period of time.” When one considers the incredible number of proteins necessary just for one cell to function, not to mention their interconnections, then one is faced with the question Hirsch raises: “How could a function requiring multiple proteins in a cellular machine ever arise through the required random mutations that developed, one protein molecule at a time and in a stepwise manner; mutations that provided no intermediate product with any function that would allow Darwinian natural selection to work?”

    Similarly, DNA encodes the pattern of about 250 amino acids that make up a protein. An estimate cited by Berlinksi puts the number of viable proteins at ten to the fiftieth power-the raw material of all life that has ever existed. Yet the number of “all possible proteins of a fixed length (250 amino acid residues) is computed by multiplying twenty by itself 250 times (twenty to the 250th power).”

    Even so, we are supposed to believe that the tiny subset of proteins that makes possible all living things arose by accident out of that vast ocean of possibility. This is about as likely as thousand monkeys randomly pounding typewriter keys and producing even one line of Shakespeare, which cannot happen unless something can save the right letters when they are accidentally hit upon, because that “something” knows what the target line is. In evolution, that “something” is natural selection, which is now given the powers of purpose, intention, and design.

    The point here is not that the biblical account of creation should be taught in schools. Rather, it is that scientists should behave as scientists and be willing to question their own assumptions and meet criticism with reasoned debate. Skepticism is science’s most valuable tool; its absence among too Darwinists suggests that something other than science is at work.

  50. Zane Says:

    Excellent points John. Finally a voice of reason.

  51. Green Earth Says:

    Scientists are willing to question their science, be criticized and reviewed by qualified scientific peers. There is no reason, however, to allow RELIGION in science simply because proponents of ID claim they are being treated unfairly. ID is creationism is religion. Science is science, it is not about whether or not one believes in god.

  52. S.Scott Says:

    Zane,

    Wow SScott. Yes and should be restricted to the point it errs. You don’t use checks and balances given to weigh your conclusions. The point being is that you skew your thought process by immediatley dumping the idea of any intelligent design.

    Bullshit! I believe in God. These things just don’t belong in the science class. Period.

    I also think “Intelligent Design/Creationism” is insulting and cowardly and deceiptful.

  53. Mike O'Risal Says:

    And John M assiduously avoids addressing any of my points or answering any of the questions asked.

    I’ve really nothing further to say on the matter. John can be predicted to continue repeating the words of others instead of providing any evidence of critical analysis, experience with peer reviewed research, or even a basic understanding of molecular evolution (hint: Berlinksi is also a mathematician, not a biologist of any sort, whose arguments have also been debunked numerous times by legitimate biologists).

    Instead, he throws out some red herring about skepticism; note that my application of skepticism to his claims are taken as evidence of having a closed mind, despite my having couched them in terms of what’s known about the mechanisms at work and providing a reference to basic information about the same — information which he clearly lacks and instead relies on repeated arguments from (what he perceives to be) authority. Nor does he address that have just mentioned a review paper I’ve written that approached a question in molecular biology skeptically and disagreed with a hypothesis put forth not by proponents of Neocreationism but by fellow evolutionary biologists whom, I should mention, have done otherwise outstanding work for which I have the greatest respect.

    And then, of course, we have Zane, who likewise knows nothing at all about the topic at hand but feels qualified to voice an opinion based upon some gibberish about his experience in running some sort of business and “moral reinvigoration” and the casting of aspersions regarding my views of the value of life (hint: I’ve dedicated my own life to understanding life).

    I actually feel quite satisfied with the course this thread has taken, I must say. John M and Zane have served as wonderful examples of the sort of myopic ignorance that Florida faces. I have nothing further to add here. I’m sure the Neocreo Twins will have their last word, though… and they’ll be as equally foolish as all of their previous words.

  54. S.Scott Says:

    Science cannot prove nor can it disprove God.

    Intelligent Design/Creationism claims to be able to TEST for GOD! Are you kidding me?

    You have PROOF of GOD? Wow! Let’s see it!

  55. Zane Says:

    Creationism is a religion ? So those who build houses and cars are theolgians ?

  56. Green Earth Says:

    Let me clarify, Intelligent Design is Creationism is Religious Doctrine.
    When I say creationism, I do not mean a person who builds or constructs things, I mean it in the sense that Christians use it.

    It’s very simple, according to Intelligent Design, there is a designer, according to creationism there is a creator. Same concepts, different names, both religious doctrines.

    Bottom line- they DO NOT belong in PUBLIC school SCIENCE.

  57. zygosporangia Says:

    Science IS restricted! It has rules! Anything outside of those rules is not science!

    You hit the nail on the head, S. Scott.

  58. S.Scott Says:

    Like someone said earlier in this thread – Michael Behe accepts evolutionary theory and he is one of the DI’s FELLOWS!

    Do you know why? … Because there is overwhelming evidence!

    Michael Behe is also the one who gave you all a very “Sciency” term to use – “Irreducible Complexity”

    He claimed that Bacterial Flagellum was soooo complez that it could never be reduced to a more simple form – Well guess what happened?

    That’s right! You guessed it! It was reduced! Now the Goal Posts have to be moved…

  59. zygosporangia Says:
  60. S.Scott Says:

    Saint Augustine believed that anything that man learned from science is necessary for our salvation.

    ID says a designer did it – so you don’t have to look any further.

    It stifles science and therefore prohibits salvation.

    ID is bad theology as well as non-science.

  61. S.Scott Says:

    Let ID give us some tests other than “You can’t explain it so it must be true”.

    No scientist will ever claim to know everything, because if they did – progress would stop.

  62. zygosporangia Says:

    ID has no evidence at all to support it… yet cdesign proponentsists want it to be taught right alongside evolution in schools, even though it could never even be a valid scientific theory or hypothesis.

  63. S.Scott Says:

    Science and religion do not conflict.

    However, trying to push religion into the science class DOES conflict with good science and the First Amendment.

  64. S.Scott Says:

    Don’t you think that when Michael Behe said that the flagellum could NEVER be reduced, he was telling people that they needed to look no further?

    OK – so we take Behe’s advice … we are done! YAY!

    But real scientists are never done. They are always looking.

  65. Jonathan Smith Says:

    John M:You failed to answer my question,so I will ask again.

    If you assume that all evidence for macroevolution is invalid then provide an alternative hypothosis,if you would suggest that “god did it” then please show me the impericle,testifiable falsifiable evidence to support your position.This would include the exact manner in which God created
    and then implemented his creation: note,.debunking evolution does not count as evidence in your favor,if evolution is wrong it does not follow that your theory(goddidit) is true by default. Show us your evidence.
    Also, if you consider that your personal diety is ‘The Designer” you will of course provide the scientific evidence to support this.

  66. John M. Says:

    Jonathan, what is “impericle”? Do you mean “empirical”?

    There is a lot of empirical evidence for design. Here is but one example. Review the article, entitled “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories”. In this article, the author, Dr. Meyer, proposes that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms. He proposes intelligent design as an alternative explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa.

    His conclusion: “An experience-based [empirical] analysis of the causal powers of various explanatory hypotheses suggests purposive or intelligent design as a causally adequate–and perhaps the most causally adequate–explanation for the origin of the complex specified information required to build the Cambrian animals and the novel forms they represent. For this reason, recent scientific interest in the design hypothesis is unlikely to abate as biologists continue to wrestle with the problem of the origination of biological form and the higher taxa.

  67. S.Scott Says:

    If you break down John M.’s argument … he says that analysis concludes that a designer did it… That scientisis will never be able to prove otherwise … DUH!

    “An experience-based [empirical] analysis of the causal powers of various explanatory hypotheses

    Emperical analysis of someone’s thoughts ? Gimme a break, troll.

    suggests purposive or intelligent design as a causally adequate–and perhaps the most causally adequate–explanation for the origin of the complex specified information required to build the Cambrian animals and the novel forms they represent.

    …Suggests -The adequate explanation is that God did it – so we don’t have to look any further,right?

    For this reason, recent scientific interest in the design hypothesis is unlikely to abate as biologists continue to wrestle with the problem of the origination of biological form and the higher taxa.

    So of course … John M. and trolls like him will keep using “sciency” words to say that the “Designer” did it and — “You actual scientists will always be wrong because you don’t know everything! … Please buy our book! See we use science terms! We don’t care if we are stifleing real scientists from finding real cures to real diseases! We don’t care if we are violating the First Amendment!”

    Isn’t that right, John M.??

  68. firemancarl Says:

    Zane said
    Creationism is a religion ? So those who build houses and cars are theolgians ?

    and is now king of the non sequitir.

  69. firemancarl Says:

    John M you said In this article, the author, Dr. Meyer, proposes that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms.

    What pray tell is material about evolution?

  70. S.Scott Says:

    I’m sorry everyone, I just realized that I was breaking my own rule to NFTT’s. I’ll try not to let it happen again :-)

    Carry on FC! :-)

  71. John M. Says:

    Firemancarl, materialistic theory or materialism is simply a descriptor meaning “without design” or some other outside causal factor or influence. Evolution in this context is material because it relies solely on the natural selection process emanating from the physical material present. Micro-evolution, which is without dispute, is a materialistic theory. However, micro-evolution can not account for the vast changes required to build up new species within our geologic time span.

    Good question.

  72. firemancarl Says:

    Micro-evolution, which is without dispute, is a materialistic theory. However, micro-evolution can not account for the vast changes required to build up new species within our geologic time span.

    This is not true. A lot of micro changes over time lead to macro evolution. This is a common misunderstanding of creationists and IDists. This is also why it is not “seen”. There are examples of transitional fossils and these show the beginnings of macro changes.

  73. firemancarl Says:

    continuing, tiktaalik is an excellent example of transition of a lot of previous micro changes making macro changes.

  74. Christopher Wing Says:

    I think this is a GREAT idea.

    Society needs people to mop the floors, wash the dishes, and cut the lawn.

    See, we’re killing two birds. With one big-ass stone.

    First, Republicans will be rid of the “brown menace” – those horrid Mexicans stealing our jobs (“They’re takin’ our jobs!”)

    Second, the children of those same Republicans will be so dumb, so completely full of anti-science nonsense, that they won’t be able to get any jobs BUT mopping the floors, washing the dishes, and cutting the lawn.

    This sacrifice which Florida has made will not go unnoticed!

  75. Spirula Says:

    firemancarl,

    Good luck with that. Here’s what you’re up against: The fossil record shows macroevolution occurs and often. Comparative anatomy and physiology shows macroevolution occurs and often. Molecular comparative genetics shows macroevolution occurs and often. Biogeography shows macroevolution occurs and often.

    But some information theorist with no credentials in biology, biochemistry or geology ran sciency words through his flux-capacitor and says “Macroevolution, no way. And the fact that I’m a Christian and faculty at a seminary has nothing to do with it.”

  76. zygosporangia Says:

    Heh. John M just quoted the DI fellow Meyer, from an article that has been lambasted by the scientific community at large. Perhaps he really is just cutting and pasting DI talking points?

  77. zygosporangia Says:

    Good luck with that. Here’s what you’re up against: The fossil record shows macroevolution occurs and often.

    Not to nit-pick, but fossil record changes (e.g. Cambrian explosion) can also be explained by migratory events. If one species migrates from one place to another, it would be as if they suddenly appeared in the fossil record. They certainly are not indicative as a problem with evolution or as evidence for design!

  78. John M. Says:

    Firemancarl, you point to the heart of the current controversy — whether processes observable within existing species and gene pools(microevolution) can account for large-scale changes over geological time (macroevolution). Here are a few examples of peer reviewed scientific articles that have referred to it just in the last few years:

    “One of the oldest problems in evolutionary biology remains largely unsolved… Historically, the neo-Darwinian synthesizers stressed the predominance of micromutations in evolution, whereas others noted the similarities between some dramatic mutations and evolutionary transitions to argue for macromutationism.” (David L. Stern, “Perspective: Evolutionary Developmental Biology and the Problem of Variation,” Evolution 54 (2000): 1079-1091.)

    “Large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be understood solely on the basis of extrapolation from processes observed at the level of modern populations and species.” (Robert L. Carroll, “Towards a new evolutionary synthesis,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 15 (January, 2000): 27.)

    “A persistent debate in evolutionary biology is one over the continuity of
    microevolution and macroevolution — whether macroevolutionary trends are governed by the principles of microevolution.” (Andrew M. Simons, “The continuity of microevolution and macroevolution,” Journal of Evolutionary Biology 15 (2002): 688-701.)

    The important point to make here is that the controversy has not yet been resolved, precisely because the evidence needed to resolve it is still lacking. It is important for today’s science students to know what the
    evidence does or does not show — not just what some scientists hope the evidence will eventually show, or what those in the political realm dictate.

    Since the controversy over microevolution and macroevolution is at the heart of Darwin’s theory, and since evolutionary theory is so influential in modern biology, it is a disservice to our students in Florida to suppress this debate.

  79. Spirula Says:

    zygosporangia,

    Not to nit-pick your nit-pick, but the joke was massive evidentiary publications in major themes vs one non-scientist publication (book) that amounts to “Wow, that looks hard. Ugga-bugga musta made this. Oh, and my belief in Ugga-bugga in no way influenced my conclusions”.

  80. Zane Says:

    Wow like cutting and pasting isn’t done here on a regular basis.

  81. Zane Says:

    John makes good points but everyone seems to take it personal – you should welcome his thoughts not get agitated. I have to hand it to him, he keeps his composure, where all of you have been extremely rude.

  82. zygosporangia Says:

    John makes good points but everyone seems to take it personal

    I’m still waiting on a good point. All that I’ve read from him so far are the same tired old creationist talking points on DI’s website. I was hoping for a challenge, but he has provided none. *sigh*

  83. John M. Says:

    Thanks, Zane. I have actually had a lot of fun with this blog and have indeed learned a few things myself in the process.

    The vitriolic responses are really entertaining so I don’t mind being called names and such. I had lunch with my wife today and was telling her about this blog. I remarked to her that I stumbled across this blog where the arguments were so one-sided that I decided to have a little fun and “stir things up” a bit by presenting the other side. It has been a lot of fun in addition to educational (she just thought I was a weird geek, lol).

  84. zygosporangia Says:

    “Wow, that looks hard. Ugga-bugga musta made this. Oh, and my belief in Ugga-bugga in no way influenced my conclusions”

    Indeed. Most of the so-called “critical flaws” that creationists claim exist in evolution are based purely on their own wishful thinking compounded by their ignorance of science.

    Of the remaining “flaws”, these generally boil down to misapplication of evolution (e.g. changing the definition of evolution to include abiogenesis or to encompass the origin of the universe), or personal incredulity (e.g. “I don’t understand the math behind evolution, therefore it must be wrong.” — the argument that Dembski tries and fails at).

  85. Zane Says:

    Challenge ? Just because something is tired or old does it lose its significance ? Hmm are you for euthanasia ? (a Darwin mindset)

  86. zygosporangia Says:

    I remarked to her that I stumbled across this blog where the arguments were so one-sided that I decided to have a little fun and “stir things up” a bit by presenting the other side.

    You have either done a poor job, or have shown just how shoddy the reasoning is for the very vocal and ignorant minority who are in agreement with your talking points.

  87. Zane Says:

    John, it is a honor to be on the same side of the battle with you.

  88. zygosporangia Says:

    Just because something is tired or old does it lose its significance ?

    The fact that it has lost its significance is what makes it tired and old. I really shouldn’t feed trolls.

    Hmm are you for euthanasia ? (a Darwin mindset)

    Nice strawman. How is euthanasia and Darwinian evolution related? (this ought to lead to a lot of laughs)

  89. Zane Says:

    The less of an argument they have, the more adjectives they use.

  90. Green Earth Says:

    Clearly the constitution has lost its significance to you and the IDers. It is a violation of the first amendment to teach ID (which IS religious doctrine) in public school science.

  91. Zane Says:

    What would you think Zyg ? Are you being honest or just want to be argumentative ? What do you think I meant ?

  92. Zane Says:

    Green, there is no violation of the constitution to each ID.

  93. Zane Says:

    Sorry teach

  94. Green Earth Says:

    Yes, there is. Separation of church and state- 1st amendment.

  95. Zane Says:

    No where does the constitution say “seperation of church and state”, much less teaching about ID.

  96. Green Earth Says:

    It saddens me just how ignorant and uninformed people are regarding US history and law. Many people claim that separation of church and state is a myth- they are wrong! While those exact words do not appear in the US constitution, the concept is there- by word and deed the founding fathers demonstrated this was their intention.

  97. Green Earth Says:

    Q. Where is the “separation of church and state” in the Constitution?

    A. The First Amendment’s religion clauses state: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” The Establishment Clause forbids more than the establishment of a national religion; it also forbids laws or actions respecting an establishment of religion. As James Madison, Father of the Constitution, put it “The Constitution of the U.S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.” In a January 1, 1802 letter, President Thomas Jefferson wrote of the intended relationship between religion and government: “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”

    The Establishment Clause sets up a line of demarcation between religion and government in our society, and the Supreme Court determines where the line is drawn to accommodate liberties in our ever-changing society. Although the exact language is absent, the Supreme Court has repeatedly determined that the Constitution does indeed call for separation between church and state.

  98. Green Earth Says:

    The above is from:
    http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_faq

  99. John M. Says:

    Green, let’s take a look at what the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution actually says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    There you go, the whole thing. Not sure how you get that presenting scientific evidence debunking the Darwinist claims somehow morphs into “Congress establishing a religion”. In fact, I think it is just the opposite, the Darwinists would be very happy to violate the First Amendment by suppressing the free speech of scientists and others who present evidence to the contrary of the Darwinists. In fact, this is happening to some degree in the academic establishment now where the elites are suppressing research and funding and having a chilling effect on those who “dare to disagree”.

  100. Zane Says:

    Ignorance my friend ? You should read the early drafts of the constitution. You equate a intelligent design with a religion. That is your leap. Religion is man made. The moral law is God made. You want to separate morality from man’s thought. You want it eliminated from society I understand that. But every law is codifying some moral principle. You have found your cloak in scientism where you can hide from morality. It is quite evident. It was evident in Nazi Germany.

  101. Zane Says:

    Good point – the suppressing of free speech ! Good show, John.

  102. Green Earth Says:

    Do you have early drafts of the constitution, or know where I could see them? I would love to if you have a link or reference.

    Again, I am not opposed to scientific analysis and research about evolution that may be variant from what Darwin proposed, I am opposed to Intelligent Design, which is a religious doctrine being compared to hypothesis-based science.

  103. Ivory girl Says:

    Which ever way you guys try to twist and turn your arguments betray your real intentions.As hard as you try to insist otherwise the “Intelligent Designer” must be a creator god (a deity that has created the cosmos) because if it were something else (presumed an advanced alien race of some description) they would be subject to the same arguments for ID as humans and the world that exists around them. A creator god, understood to be the creator of everything, must be above and beyond the normally available scientific detection methods, cannot be validated, cannot be falsified and nor can any specific evidence of that deities handiwork be detected.
    Even your “jewel in the crown ” Michael Behe conceded that:
    “there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred”.
    Phillip E. Johnson(DI) has further conceded that the ID movement is:”simply a means of putting God” back into science and the school curriculum. Any hypothesis involving such a creator god can have no observable, measurable, or experimental consequences to test … that does not mean per se that such a god cannot exist but it does mean that its existence must be taken on faith.”
    Many people believe that our fates are guided by the stars, that people have been abducted by UFOS and that ghosts exist yet just as with ID, there is no evidence for any and when tested all of these fail.Ultimately each of us has our own views, opinions, regarding every aspect of life ,but they are all subjective and not objective.
    Nothing can turn opinions into truth unless you have the “empirical” evidence to support them,the bogus concept of ID demonstrate little but ignorance of real science.

  104. Zane Says:

    The supreme court ruled that secular humanism is a religion. Should its tenet of Darwinian thought then be taught in the schools then ?

  105. Green Earth Says:

    Since you seem to like referencing Nazis so much- as someone mentioned earlier, should Holocaust deniers be allowed their equal time in history classes due to free speech?
    And on the subject, since you seem to be equating me with Nazis, my family is Jewish- how does that work? And funnier still you criticized people earlier for being rude and attacking the individual not their arguments.

  106. Zane Says:

    If you saw the early pyramids, would you believe that intelligent design was involved in the building of it ?

  107. Zane Says:

    Either you would conclude that the pyramids were designed or just evolved. Which would be the leap of logic ?

  108. Green Earth Says:

    You are comparing MAN-made structures, (as you did earlier) to nature.
    That does not prove ID.

  109. Zane Says:

    No adjectives here friend. Just illustrating a point. I am Jewish myself. Showing the mindset thats all. Do you believe in free speech ? If one wants to bring up a subject for discussion thats great – then the ones on the sidelines will observe the demeanor and content of the debate and thence see open folly. However those afraid of free speech may not want their ideas challenged.

  110. Zane Says:

    So you admit that pyramids were made by intelligent design ?

  111. John M. Says:

    Green, ultimately, Darwinism leads (and has led) to a devaluing of human life. Just look at the use of eugenics by the Nazis and others. Indeed, the Nazi leaders were great proponents of Darwinism and wanted to use this “theory” to further perfect its “master race”.

  112. Zane Says:

    How did you know that the pyramids were made by man ?

  113. Zane Says:

    What method did you use to determine that the pyramids were made by man ?

  114. Green Earth Says:

    By archaeological discoveries, accounts and illustrations (by the Egyptians) showing how they were constructed.

    Why-do you think they are alien structures?

  115. John M. Says:

    Here is a quote that is most telling:

    The question was asked of uber-Darwinist, Richard Dawkins: Would he care to live in a society shaped by Darwinian principles?

    “Not at all”, he at once responded.

    And why not?

    “Because the result would be fascism.”

    In this, Richard Dawkins was entirely correct; and it is entirely to his credit that he said so.

  116. Zane Says:

    Dawkins might think so. But its interesting that the Creator of the universe came in the form of a man with much more documentation and evidence than the pyramids, yet you don’t believe it.

  117. Zane Says:

    And you look at the pyramids and admit that it was intelligently designed and yet the human body is much more complicated, than the pyramid structure, and yet you say there is no intelligent design involved in the formation of the human being.

  118. Zane Says:

    Yes Dawkins is much more candid than most Darwinianists.

  119. zygosporangia Says:

    John M –

    Nice quote mine of Dawkins, taking his statement entirely out of context.

    Nature exhibits natural selection, this is true. It also exhibits the second law of thermodynamics. However, neither selection nor thermodynamics makes any sense in politics or religion. If they did, then surely all of the hot air coming out of the fundamentalists would cause global warming. :-P

  120. Zane Says:

    So you didnt believe that the pyramids were made by man until you saw documentation ?

  121. zygosporangia Says:

    Zane –

    Can we please stop with the whole “If you came across a house” analogy? It is ridiculously flawed. If you believe this to be a good argument, then you need to study debate.

  122. Green Earth Says:

    What documentation is there of a creator- other than the bible?

  123. zygosporangia Says:

    Better yet, Green Earth… what empirical evidence is there for a creator?

  124. Zane Says:

    How was Dawkins statement taken out of context Zy? Would you put it in context for us.

  125. Zane Says:

    Zy you don’t like that illustration because it shows your folly I understand.

  126. zygosporangia Says:

    The context that the John M troll attempts to imply is that acknowledging evolution in nature is the same as claiming that we should shape our society by natural selection. This is a ridiculous argument, and no modern notable scientist believes as such.

  127. zygosporangia Says:

    Zy you don’t like that illustration because it shows your folly I understand.

    Is that honestly the best response you can come up with? Please, provide me with something other than a cut-and-paste talking point. Show me that you actually understand what you are arguing against.

  128. Zane Says:

    You cannot be consistent and hold a uniform moral code with a Darwinian mindset. They oppose each other.

  129. Zane Says:

    Ok Zy I guess you are serious. If you can tell that a pyramid was made by an intelligent designer – and that animals, of a far greater complexity, just happend by chance – you have alot of “faith”.

  130. zygosporangia Says:

    You cannot be consistent and hold a uniform moral code with a Darwinian mindset. They oppose each other.

    You make the false assumption that belief in a creator is where one derives morality. This is sadly false. There was morality long before Christianity or any other organized religion or mythology. Also, observing a mechanism in nature has nothing to do with philosophy. Does the acceptance of gravity change morality?

  131. Ivory girl Says:

    Zane,your logic is breath taking “We can tell the pyramids are designed because they are complicated and any thing complicated requires a designer”
    Well following your line of logic,(if something is complicated it must require a designer) then how much more complicated the designer must be than its design.So who designed the designer?
    As for your “But its interesting that the Creator of the universe came in the form of a man with much more documentation and evidence than the pyramids, yet you don’t believe it”.We now know your true convictions and why you want them forced into the science class room.

  132. John M. Says:

    Zy, that is not my claim, that is the claim made by the Nazis and others of their ilk. They justified their eugenics from Darwin, survival of the fittest, natural selection (that they simply “helped”). Even Dawkins realizes this.

  133. zygosporangia Says:

    and that animals, of a far greater complexity, just happend by chance

    Natural selection and evolution has absolutely nothing to do with “happening by chance”. It is your ignorance that makes you believe so. I recommend that you try reading a few books on evolutionary biology and get back to us when you have been properly educated.

  134. Zane Says:

    and you could not hold humans to a uniform moral code if one is more advanced in the species than another.

  135. zygosporangia Says:

    They justified their eugenics from Darwin, survival of the fittest, natural selection (that they simply “helped”).

    Hitler justified his anti-Jewish platform on Christianity, not Darwinism. It looks like someone needs to read their history books.

  136. Zane Says:

    Ok how did life begin Zy. ?

  137. zygosporangia Says:

    and you could not hold humans to a uniform moral code if one is more advanced in the species than another.

    Zane – this line of reasoning is asinine. As I said before, you need to start reading something more than the talking points that you subscribe to.

  138. zygosporangia Says:

    Ok how did life begin Zy. ?

    Abiogenisis has absolutely nothing to do with the scientific theory of evolution. Scientists do not yet know where life originated. Nor do the writers of Christian mythology.

  139. Zane Says:

    Ivory sorry for giving you more credit than I should have. I thought a simple illustration would be good enough for you. But tell me how life began then.

  140. Zane Says:

    Its interesting you say mythology and yet you have no proof that it is a myth. You make conclusions based on whims and not evidence ? You should say I don’t know if its true or not, but you can’t say it’s a myth.

  141. John M. Says:

    Zy, Darwin’s work persuaded scientists in England, Germany and the United States that human beings were accidents of creation. Where Darwin had seen species struggling for survival, German physicians, biologists, and professors of hygiene saw races.

    They drew the obvious conclusion, the one that Darwin had already drawn. In the struggle for survival, the fittest win out at the expense of their rivals. German scientists took the word expense to mean what it meant: The annihilation of less fit races.

    The point is made with abysmal clarity in the documentary, Expelled. Visiting the site at which those judged defective were killed — a hospital, of course — Ben Stein asks the curator what most influenced the doctors doing the killing.

    “Darwinism,” she replied wanly.

    At Hitler’s death in May of 1945, the point was clear enough to the editorial writers of the New York Times. “Long before he had dreamed of achieving power,” they wrote, [Hitler] had developed the principles that nations were destined to hate, oppose and destroy one another; [and] that the law of history was the struggle for survival between peoples … ”.

    Where, one might ask, had Hitler heard those ideas before? He didn’t hear it from the Bible!

  142. Zane Says:

    Do you believe that a temple once existed in Jerusalem ?

  143. zygosporangia Says:

    Zane –

    You simply are ignorant of the definition of mythology. Let me help you out:

    my·thol·o·gy (mĭ-thŏl’ə-jē) pronunciation
    n., pl. -gies.
    1.
    A. A body or collection of myths belonging to a people and addressing their origin, history, deities, ancestors, and heroes.
    B. A body of myths associated with an event, individual, or institution: “A new mythology, essential to the . . . American funeral rite, has grown up” (Jessica Mitford).
    2. The field of scholarship dealing with the systematic collection and study of myths.

    myth (mĭth) pronunciation
    n.
    1.
    A. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.
    B. Such stories considered as a group: the realm of myth.

    Yes, it is called Christian mythology. That is the most accurate way to describe it. If you don’t understand these definitions, I’d be happy to dumb them down for you.

  144. Zane Says:

    “Scientists do not yet know where life originated.’ An admirable admission Zy

  145. Zane Says:

    You are Jewish, so am I. Is being a Jew a myth ?

  146. Zane Says:

    Evolution would be considered a myth too then Zy.

  147. Green Earth Says:

    “Being” a religion is not a myth, but religion is part of mythology.

  148. zygosporangia Says:

    “Scientists do not yet know where life originated.’ An admirable admission Zy

    Yes. No one knows where or how life originated. No book provides evidence for this yet.

  149. zygosporangia Says:

    Evolution would be considered a myth too then Zy.

    That which has evidence is not considered a myth. Once again, you need to educate yourself about the words you use.

  150. zygosporangia Says:

    John M –

    Hitler could have easily derived the same teachings by reading about the Hittites in your bible.

  151. Zane Says:

    “No one knows where or how life originated.” How do you know that to be true Zy. Do you know all things ?

  152. Zane Says:

    You make a blanket statement that you have no absolute knowledge of. Are you God ?

  153. John M. Says:

    Zy, Zane is right, Evolution could be considered a “myth” under your definition because it addresses a people’s origins. There may or may not be evidence to support your myth. I contend that the evidence for macro-evolution is very weak and flawed.

  154. Zane Says:

    This mindset is quite telling. You make these statements Just like Dawkins and say that God doesn’t exist – but can’t prove it. You have no evidence.

  155. John M. Says:

    “John M –

    Hitler could have easily derived the same teachings by reading about the Hittites in your bible.”

    Zy, I don’t think so. I don’t know of any mention of natural selection or survival of the fittest anywhere in the Bible. In fact, there is just the opposite. The Bible talks about the value of humanity in being created in God’s image, so I would say the concepts are diametrically opposed to one another.

  156. zygosporangia Says:

    “No one knows where or how life originated.” How do you know that to be true Zy. Do you know all things ?

    You make a blanket statement that you have no absolute knowledge of. Are you God ?

    If you have evidence other than your bible, I’d love to hear it.

  157. firemancarl Says:

    John M you said

    Green, ultimately, Darwinism leads (and has led) to a devaluing of human life. Just look at the use of eugenics by the Nazis and others. Indeed, the Nazi leaders were great proponents of Darwinism and wanted to use this “theory” to further perfect its “master race”.

    What the frack?

    Goodness gracious. I suppose then we can say that Hitler was a huge fan of Jesus and God and the Bible. I mean the Wehrmacht were issued belt buckles that said “Gott Mit Uns” on them and Hitler said
    I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.
    – Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2

    I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.

    – Adolf Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936

  158. zygosporangia Says:

    John M –

    Evolution could be considered a “myth” under your definition because it addresses a people’s origins. There may or may not be evidence to support your myth. I contend that the evidence for macro-evolution is very weak and flawed.

    Please re-read the definitions of myths and mythology above. I don’t think you actually understand either word. Myths have a supernatural explanation. Please show me the supernatural explanation given by evolution as to the origin of species?

  159. Zane Says:

    Clever Zy, but you didnt answer the question. How do you know that God doesn’t exist ?

  160. Zane Says:

    Take care John – have to go home now. Its been fun all, later.

  161. zygosporangia Says:

    John M –

    Zy, I don’t think so. I don’t know of any mention of natural selection or survival of the fittest anywhere in the Bible.

    You are getting your history confused. Don’t worry, this is very common among people without a proper exposure to the history of WWII.

    The Nazi eugenics program had little to do with the Jews. The “final solution” had little to do with eugenics. Both are glossed over in history as being atrocities, and people have mistakenly assumed that the two are directly related mostly out of ignorance.

    When Hitler rose to power, he quoted Martin Luther, not Charles Darwin.

  162. zygosporangia Says:

    Clever Zy, but you didnt answer the question. How do you know that God doesn’t exist ?

    Where is your scientific evidence that he does? Once you provide that, you can teach creationism in the science classroom. Until then, it is not science.

  163. zygosporangia Says:

    This mindset is quite telling. You make these statements Just like Dawkins and say that God doesn’t exist – but can’t prove it. You have no evidence.

    Interesting. You don’t have any evidence that your god, any other god, or your so-called “intelligent” designer does exist. How can you teach something as a valid criticism of evolution if you have no evidence to back it up, exactly?

  164. Green Earth Says:

    Burden of proof is not on us- we do not need to disprove god, if you are claiming Intelligent Design, the burden of proof of a designer is on you, the person(s) supporting that idea.

  165. Noodlicious Says:

    # Zane Says:
    April 29th, 2008 at 5:07 pm

    “However those afraid of free speech may not want their ideas challenged.”

    Thank you Zane :)
    I praise your support of helping to stop suppression of His Noodley Word.
    You have surely been touched by His Noodley Appendage
    RAmen

    ps Will FSMism Unintelligent Design be open to critical analysis too?

  166. firemancarl Says:

    Zane said Clever Zy, but you didnt answer the question. How do you know that God doesn’t exist ?

    Teh stoopid continues. Wow, just in case we needed more proof the fundies suffer from HICs- Head In Cement Syndrome.

  167. Green Earth Says:

    Noodlicious- who could possibly be opposed to teaching about pasta, pirates and beer volcanoes???

  168. firemancarl Says:

    I dunno Green, but sign me up!

  169. Green Earth Says:

    firemancarl may you be touched by his noodly appendage!
    RAmen!