It’s taken me months, but finally a comprehensive narrative of what happened during the science standards fight is all done. It includes source material and archived video! It’s a great research tool.
There is also a section about the academic freedom bills fight, but it’s pretty much a placeholder until I get the chance to take it on like I did the standards. I’m currently archiving video from legislative sessions and will put them up as I finish that task. So, check back there every now and then for any such updates.
Brandon, this is great work. I’m sure it’s my fault, but I had no idea these resources were available. Please consider putting some kind of prominent notice on the home page about that material. You know … a box, or a widget, or whatever it’s called, so visitors can click over there.
thstc scntsts, Dwkns ssr s th r thsts, hv prvdd th mns t psn ll ftr gnrtns, f nt lmnt thm. nl fls…r vl mn…sppl sch thngs t wrng gngs. gss th rn’t rll tht smrt r th? nd nlss Y r n wh s prtstng t, t lts, Y r ls cmplcct. Th gnd f th Nw thsts s t s scnc dtn s frnt t dstr rlgn…Dwkns s qt p frnt bt ths, s r SM f th mmbr f Knss Ctzns fr scnc; thrws wh th cntnt rnts thr, s n xmpl, gnst LL rlgn nd prcs lttl “scnc”. f crs SCNC s nt thsm…bt th thsts wnt t cnvnc yr kds t s.
Nt t csl srs hr…ntc th stmtr t lwr lft. Ths llws nyn ld t yr P nmbr…s f y wnt prvc, whch y hv rght t, s smn ls’s cmptr r P mskng.
Brandon you have done a fantastic job! I think as we proceed into the Fall and witness the next attacks on Science, that this archive will be a powerful weapon in that fight.
By the way, I have not seen one instance of anyone filing legislation to bring science into our churches by governmental decree but we have seen many examples of the opposite, ie legislation attempting to bring narrowly supported religious doctrines into our science classrooms – threatening the religious freedom of our students.
If you reply to this on Sunday morning I will not be around as I am going church where I am Hospitality Chair. In my day job I hold 2 science degrees and teach science. A new poll shows that 80% of us scientists are also religious people.
*sniffing the air* in an English pirate accent I smells a godbot troll I does!
Great job Brandon. I was at the Orlando meeting and always wanted a video of it. Thanks!
Ah, ABO is the “orange guy”. I suspected as much. 😉
Yeah, that puts ABO into proper perspective. 😉
That “disemvoweling” creps me out for some reason.
Not me, no oranges. But the guy did have a good point.
LOL @ ABO!
What point was Mr. Orange making besides showing the public that he really doesn’t know anything about what evolution theory is actually stating?
Karl, what are you saying? Are you saying oranges can’t become something else? That’s blasphemy!
You didn’t answer Karl’s question ABO. What “good point” did the guy with the orange make? Or at least, attempt to make?
I’m genuinely interested in your answer to the question.
*bets on the sound of crickets…*
He posted that “Lady Hope” Darwin deathbed confession fantasy that even more than few creationists realize is not to be used anymore because it’s bullshit over on the “Webs They Weave” thread at 7:48am. https://www.flascience.org/wp/?p=661#comments
He had time for a moronic drive-by but not to answer your excellent question. I am just SO suprised! 😉
I happen to like the Lady Hope story, Of course the family would say Lady Hope’s story was just make believe. If the story was perceived as true, it would be bad for the family business. Is it true, who cares. The message is real, whether he said it or not doesn’t really mater, people have made a religion out of his imaginations. And that gives the story credibility.
Darwin’s fanciful renunciation of his life’s work is utterly irrelevant, even if it were true. Evolution is still good science. Galileo actually did renounce the solar system. So what?
The big news is that Edison renounced the electric light on his death bed, when he had a religious awakening. He remembered the promise of the Lord to Noah, after the Flood:
With the spiritual wisdom he gained on his deathbed, Edison realized that his infernal electric light had destroyed the divine harmony of the night. Ever since Edison, we have been cursed. What has been our fate since Edison? War, sodomy, Hitler, Stalin, teen pregnancy, liberalism, socialism, income taxes, drugs … all the abominations of our current age. And Edison is the cause!!! Can’t you see it? Are you blind??? Common sense is all it takes!
Edison — the beast!! — altered the divinely-ordained darkness. He diabolically illuminated the night. Since then, we’ve had coarse music, vulgar dancing, teen pregnancy, atom bombs, falling church attendance, drug usage, and ever-higher crime rates.
Hitler used electric lights! Stalin used electric lights. Mao used electric lights! Castro uses electric lights. Isn’t the pattern obvious? Wake up, you idiots!!
Turn off your lights! Smash your light bulbs! Banish electric lights from the schools! Cleanse our land from the filthy work of Edison!!!! Let the ordained cycle of day and night be restored. God bless America!!!!!
Ha ha ha!!! PH is SOO right, it just explains it all!
Karl
“What point was Mr. Orange making besides showing the public that he really doesn’t know anything about what evolution theory is actually stating?â€
Personally I think the Orange Man was trying in his own special way to show a picture of the faith based process, that you apparently hold in imagination.
Wouldn’t it be wrong to assume that the poor orange couldn’t have unknowingly changed into something else. And who are you to say that it couldn’t?
Myself, I’ve always liked Julian Huxley’s description of the doctrine. A process of self-transformation. Unguided to a higher complexity for no reason.
“Evolution, in the extended sense, can be defined as a directional and essentially irreversible process occurring in time, which in its course gives rise to an increase of variety and an increasingly high level of organization in its products. Our present knowledge indeed forces us to the view that the whole of reality is evolution – a single process of self transformation.” Julian Huxley
Now that’s real imagination>
MaryB
“ A new poll shows that 80% of us scientists are also religious people.â€
That’s rather interesting, I had no idea. Not trying to pry, but with 80% of scientist being religious, that only leaves 20% to call religion mythology.
What type of religion fits with evolutionary theory other than the religion of evolution itself? Thanks
ABO: “I happen to like the Lady Hope story, Of course the family would say Lady Hope’s story was just make believe.If the story was perceived as true, it would be bad for the family business.”
Of COURSE you like the story. It’s as appealing to you as one to me would be concerning the first-person account of a Roman soldier who happened to hear Jesus (granting the doubtful position that such a person actually existed at all, of course) wailing up on his cross that it was all a big joke, he was just kidding about that son of God stuff and could somebody please get him down from there. Of COURSE you would choose to believe the other Liar for Jesus’s malicious fabrication because a disbelief in the supernatural is bad for YOUR business and the business of everybody else who feeds off of the ignorance of the sheeple. Religion is big business and the gravy train would stop for an awful lot of folks if people grew brains. Frankly, ABO, if there was a Satanist who claimed to have heard you swear allegiance to Lucifer at your final moment I would take the word of your family, who knew you best and longest, that you said no such thing. And I certainly wouldn’t try to use such a fabrication to “prove” that your religion was a big, fat lie. There’s plenty of other ways to prove that point.
ABO: “Is it true, who cares. The message is real, whether he said it or not doesn’t really mater, people have made a religion out of his imaginations. And that gives the story credibility.”
And here we have you PWND yet you refuse to relent. Pathetic. YOU put this crap forward as if it were true and gave weight to your moronic contention. You were schooled. In typical godbot fashion you won’t say “Oops, I messed up”, and instead cling to your fairy story like a good little fundie. The tale has no credibility and neither does your one-trick pony position of “ToE is religion, lalalalalalala, I can’t hear you!!!” The parallels you attempt to draw between your insane belief in an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent magic man in the sky who poofed eveything into being in 6 days (and the rest of the insane blatherings of diseased Bronze Age goat herders) and a robust scientific theory bolstered by mountains of empirical evidence is the pathetic last gasp of the ignorant.
“What type of religion fits with evolutionary theory other than the religion of evolution itself? Thanks”
Um, you’re not going to try to pull the No True Scotsman fallacy are you? You DO know that the official stance of the Catholic Church is an acceptance of evolution, right? Many other religious people who don’t take the Bible literally accept ToE. Sorry this flies in the face of your mindless obssession that ToE is a religion and everybody who accepts ToE is an atheist but there you have it.
To someone who literally doesn’t know what evidence is, or what logic is, or what anything is, and who obviously hasn’t the beginning of a clue how to think in a rational manner, everything appears to be a packaged set of dogmas. It’s just a matter of picking out the one that seems the nicest.
I watched the Orange guy’s testimony again at the risk of a brain hemorrhage, and the only coherent point his little speech made was that he was afraid of losing that arrogant superiority complex of his when evolution takes away the notion that his species was made possible because God thought he was “special.” Did you even watch the orange guy’s video? I don’t know where you got an argument on the further speciation of oranges from that smug bastard’s 5 min. of whining about how he don’t wanna be related to no oranges. This is like me whining about salvation and everlasting life because I don’t wanna be related to zombies and vampires. It’s already come to the point where it is no longer possible to attack the scientific credibility of evolution so Christ-predators like Orange man have to tug at the heartstrings of the public with fantastic lies.
Wolfhound
Boy, with all that hot air I hope you didn’t blow the bottom out of your pants.
It’s very doubtful that the Pope has chosen to believe he is a descendent from an ape like creature, as you may hope. Perhaps the Pope has the discernment to recognize facts from fiction, which is apparently something you don’t have.
From Catholic.net
Obviously, John Paul II distinguishes between evolutionary theories compatible with sound philosophy and theology, and those, such as naturalism, which aren’t. In his talk to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, he spoke of “theories of evolution,” rather than simply the theory of evolution, to make the distinction. Believers who defend or attack evolution should make the same distinction.
When a philosophically or theology unsound version of evolution is proposed, it should be challenged on those grounds. But when a view of evolution doesn’t contradict sound philosophy or theology-when it is compatible with what John Paul II calls “the truth about man”-then its validity depends on the scientific evidence. Ultimately, the evidence will either corroborate or undermine the theory. Those who accept or reject such a theory should do so on scientific, rather than philosophical or theological, grounds.
Frankly, mindless godbot, I don’t much care what you consider to be “theologically sound” as it is an oxymoron. To you and your ilk, anything that differs from your vacuous “Goddidit” view is “unsound”. There is no getting through to somebody who suffers from anal/cranial inversion as you do. All of your blathering about “scientific evidence” and rejecting something on “scientific grounds” is laughable because, like a good little lemming, when science and scripture contradict, as they do the majority of the time, you just KNOW that science MUST be wrong. ‘Cause talking snakes, talking donkeys, flying people, giants, unicorns, people walking on water, people magically tranforming one thing into another, people living close to 1000 years, people breeding with angels, people turning into mineral formations, etc., etc., etc., is OH so credible but evolution isn’t. I seriously cannot comprehend how you cannot see the insane absurdity of your cherished cognitive dissonance. Boggles the mind…
Thank you for your misplaced concern about my trews, BTW. Unlike you, I don’t talk out of my ass so they were never in jeopardy. 🙂
“From Catholic.net
….In his talk to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, he spoke of “theories of evolution,†rather than simply the theory of evolution, to make the distinction. Believers who defend or attack evolution should make the same distinction.”
Instead of just regurgitating other wingnuts manure, why don’t you quote directly from the source ABO?
Notice ABO doesn’t even provide a link for his Catholic.net quote. How about it ABO? I’m curious to read the article and any subsequent comments on it.
No doubt ABO will follow its usual form and evade or waffle off into lala land, so I’ll post a little appetizer for him/her/it…
“Creationists, however, expressed dismay at the pontiff’s words and suggested that the initial news reports might have been based on a faulty translation. (John Paul gave the speech in French.) Perhaps, some creationists argued, the pope really said, “the theory evolution is more than one hypothesis,†not “the theory of evolution is more than a hypothesis.â€
If that were so, the Pope might have been suggesting that there are multiple theories of evolution, and all of them might be wrong.
The “faulty translation†theory, however, suffered at least two problems. Most obviously, the theory collapsed when the Catholic News Service of the Vatican confirmed that the Pope did indeed mean “more than a hypothesis,†not “more than one hypothesis.â€
The other problem stemmed from a reading of the passage in more complete context. In the speech, the Pope makes clear in his speech that he understood the difference between evolution (the highly probable fact) and the mechanism for evolution, a matter of hot dispute among scientists. John Paul said, “And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution.â€
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html
Then there’s this from Vatican Observatory Director Jesuit Father George V. Coyne at Palm Beach Atlantic University in West Palm Beach, Fla.
“I would essentially like to share with you two convictions in this presentation: (1) that the Intelligent Design (ID) movement, while evoking a God of power and might, a designer God, actually belittles God, makes her/him too small and paltry; (2) that our scientific understanding of the universe, untainted by religious considerations, provides for those who believe in God a marvelous opportunity to reflect upon their beliefs”
“Nonetheless, in 1996 in a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences Pope John Paul II declared that: “New scientific knowledge has led us to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis.†The new scientific knowledge has also led to what is now called neo-Darwinian evolution, for the most part in continuity with Darwin but obviously progressing beyond his science.”
Oh and to be fair, I shouldn’t leave out this one by Henry M. Morris.
[Founder and former President of the Institute of Creation Research] 🙂
“According to the Vatican Information Service in a news release on October 23, 1996, Pope John Paul II was reported as saying that evolution is “more than just a theory.” This seems to mean, despite the tenuous wording, that he now considers evolution a scientific fact. His written message to his science advisers, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, speaks of “a series of discoveries made in different spheres of knowledge” which have convinced him to make this bold statement supporting evolution and suggesting that his millions of followers do the same.”
OK Your turn ABO. Your supporting quote is….?
So, the Pope demands people live in humility and squallor. The bible can’t even get the correct time frames right. To wit: Herod I died in 4 BC . So, he couldn’t have been the culprit. Now what? Well, when you add up little inconsitencies like that, you have to wonder why people like ABO would keep up the biblical BS.
Noodlicious
http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/ Dossier/0102-97/Article3.html – 32k –
If the Pope wants to think he’s a monkey, that’s to bad. I’m not Catholic or Evolutionist.
ABO (July 30th, 2008 at 9:24 pm) Says: ” It’s very doubtful that the Pope has chosen to believe he is a descendent from an ape like creature, as you may hope.”
———
ABO (August 4th, 2008 at 11:04 pm) Says: “If the Pope wants to think he’s a monkey, that’s to bad. I’m not Catholic or Evolutionist.”
That’s almost as funny as your defense of the “Lady Hope” fraud.
I don’t think Jesus approved of lying for God, ABO. Try stopping.
If the Pope wants to think he’s a monkey, that’s to bad. I’m not Catholic or Evolutionist.
So what denomination of Christianity are you then? Or do you expect us to continue believing that you are just an ordinary guy who finds fault with evolution entirely on secular grounds despite regurgitating the lies fabricated by fundamentalist religious organizations and constantly straying into issues of Judeo-Christian morality?
Karl
That’s right, just an ordinary guy. Not a mutant.