Evolution/Creationism News

[Zeno Swijtink]

AAAS Policy Alert -- July 02, 2008**

Anti-Evolution News. As expected, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) last week signed into law an anti-evolution bill-one of a handful of so-called "academic freedom" bills that intelligent design supporters pushed this year in state legislatures. (Four others died as legislative sessions ended, and a fifth, in Michigan, has not shown much progress.) The bill singles out evolution and other theories as controversial and paves the way for teachers to bring supplemental (and potentially nonscientific) materials into the classroom. AAAS had voiced its strong objections to this bill, both to the legislature and to the Governor. In addition, a recent Gallup poll found that 44 percent of Americans believe that "God created humans as is within the last 10,000 years," the foundational belief of Young Earth Creationism. The poll also found that 60 percent of Republicans (versus 38 percent of Democrats) subscribed to the idea of Young Earth.

https://www.gallup.com/poll/108226/Republicans-Democrats-Differ-Creationism.aspx

Elsewhere, a Christian group has been mass-mailing intelligent design propaganda to New Zealand schools, and the Education Ministry there said it has no plans to halt the practice since it does not violate the nation’s Education Act.

[Braggi]

AAAS Policy Alert -- July 02, 2008**

Anti-Evolution News. ...

Yup. This proves evolution happens ... in reverse.

How can it be that ignorance is growing faster than education?

Oh, that's right. We're dumbing down again. All those kids being home schooled and sent to parochial schools.

We're winning the worldwide race to stupid.

-Jeff

PS. When evolution is outlawed only outlaws will evolve.

[Lenny]

I get SO tired of the alternative.
I've read their stuff. NOT all of it, and I stop at the really far out stuff, but when considered......it is an open ended system (I like those kind) that creates a lot of questions for young minds. And are they really TEACHING science to those kids? No (is the answer) but they are trying to teach them how to think and how to address things like this. Evolution as well as intelligent design are NOT science when and as taught to youngsters. The are high level conclusions based on their own respective views and each stimulates the other, or so I find.
There are problems in both camps (if you MUST insist on looking at it in a binomial manner, which it is not).
And it is not as childish as certain folks here may get ("Is too! Is not! Is too!). And I don't want to mention any names, like Ms Terry & Don, so you can't make me. Naa Huh!
But their stuff can get heady, at least for me. And just think a guy named Dumbski or some such name, that started all this! Just interesting stuff, and I like that.

[MsTerry]

And it is not as childish as certain folks here may get ("Is too! Is not! Is too!). And I don't want to mention any names, like Don, so you can't make me. Naa Huh!

Thanks for leaving me out of this, LentheMan, but do you think The Enemy can evolve too?

[MsTerry]

The bill singles out evolution and other theories as controversial and paves the way for teachers to bring supplemental (and potentially nonscientific) materials into the classroom..

LOL My kids learn alot of potentially nonscientific stuff in school.
They look potentially nonscientific, they act potentially nonscientific, they talkpotentially nonscientific, they dress potentially nonscientific, they eat potentially nonscientific, they even brush their teeth potentially nonscientific.

[Zeno Swijtink]

LOL My kids learn alot of potentially nonscientific stuff in school.
They look potentially nonscientific, they act potentially nonscientific, they talkpotentially nonscientific, they dress potentially nonscientific, they eat potentially nonscientific, they even brush their teeth potentially nonscientific.

Yea, waiting for a stoplight on B and 3rd in SR, I saw your kids. The parade was as from a Fellini movie, gone thru the potentially nonscientific wringer. It's in their blood now, in their lymph node system. There is no way back.

This is a fundamental contradiction of the digital system, that it allows a type of human to become dominant, a type that is unable to have the attention span needed to write the code for the next upgrade.

[Braggi]

I get SO tired of the alternative.
I've read their stuff. NOT all of it, and I stop at the really far out stuff, but when considered......it is an open ended system (I like those kind) that creates a lot of questions for young minds. And are they really TEACHING science to those kids? ...

Lenny, did you forget to proofread this post? Makes no sense to me. Who are you talking about doing what?

-Jeff

[Braggi]

LOL My kids learn alot of potentially nonscientific stuff in school.
... they even brush their teeth potentially nonscientific.

I think that tooth brushing stuff actually is pretty scientific.

-Jeff

[Lenny]

Quote:
Lenny wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=63222#post63222)
I get SO tired of the alternative.
I've read their stuff. NOT all of it, and I stop at the really far out stuff, but when considered......it is an open ended system (I like those kind) that creates a lot of questions for young minds. And are they really TEACHING science to those kids? ...


Lenny, did you forget to proofread this post? Makes no sense to me. Who are you talking about doing what? -Jeff

And here I was thinking of YOU!
Sorry, it's just that I've read a bit of the ID material and found it interesting. I simply cannot knee-jerk nor knee-slap them down. Some interesting notions brought up by ID that allow another view of evolution. Not much more than that. Oh, and if they want to teach their kids that in Louisiana, then I think that's OK for them. We can't even agree on No Child Left Behind TESTING, and now there should be federally mandated curriculum? I don't think so. Of course the tone of the article is snobbish in that it makes Louisiana sound "backwards" for doing what they've agreed upon over there. But then that IS what the mass media does: make news.

[PeriodThree]

and now there should be federally mandated curriculum? I don't think so. Of course the tone of the article is snobbish in that it makes Louisiana sound "backwards" for doing what they've agreed upon over there.

These are my premises:

1. The Constitution serves as a limit on all of the states.

2. The Establishment clause prohibits teaching one religion over another.

3. Intelligent Design is Religion, not science.

Therefore all states are prohibited from teaching intelligent design as science as a matter of Constitutional Law.

ID is an intentionally anti-science and anti-intellectual philosophy. To point that out is not 'snobbish' but simple observation.

[Braggi]

... 3. Intelligent Design is Religion, not science. ...

My problem with the ID folks is the idea that some Jewish guy with a long beard created the whole schmeer out of dry nothingness in a few days. Even taking a long view (as opposed to the "Young Earth" belief) intelligent design makes one wonder how stupid this designer was or is. There are a lot of animal forms that make little sense from a design perspective but make far more sense from an evolutionary perspective.

My thought is that the creative element, or intelligence, if you will, is love. Every living thing expresses love in one way or another therefore all life is an expression of love. I even take it further and suggest love is the misunderstood force that holds everything together; that the so called "atomic force" is actually love.

I'm not going on a legal campaign to force the teaching of my theory in schools. The evidence is in and the theory of evolution is what should be taught. Why evolution began in the first place fits squarely in the "mystery" camp and I have no problem teaching that. For those who have trouble dealing with the concept of mystery, religion was invented to fill that gap. (And for a few less noble reasons as well.)

-Jeff

[Peace Seeker]

Jeff wrote:

"When evolution is outlawed only outlaws will evolve."

I love it! (And plan to plagiarize it.)

I have gotten little argument from other Evangelical Christians when I observe that Jesus's mission to Humanity was not to debate the pros and cons of Evolution, but to inspire and instruct us to live with compassion, justice and reverence. I add that I don't think on the Day of Judgment, Jesus will line everybody up and ask:


"Who believes in evolution?


"OK. You're all going to Hell.



"Who doesn't believe in evolution.


"Ok. Go right on in to Heaven."

I also don't get any argument when I state that there's lots of evidence that evolution is going on right now.

I'm actually agnostic regarding Darwinism.

Regarding the metaphysics of the formation of the Universe, the creation of Life, and the emergence/origin of Humanity, I recommend that we all approach such questions with more humility than we typically do. These are vast, imponderable questions which will never be "scientifically" answered with finality. Advanced physics, current evolutionary theory, fossil interpretation and cosmology are wildly speculative activities. Can anyone actually ever know, for example whether redward shifts in the light spectrum emitted by various faint, minute pinpricks in the night sky, correlate with the sources' distance from Earth? It's a compelling hypothesis, and the reasoning behind it is impressively persuasive. Therefore I'm willing to accept it provisionally as a working assumption. But do we have a space ship that can actually go a thousand or milliion light-years out, and check whether that's what's actually happening? Nope. And it seems unlikely we'll ever have one, either. And we don't have a time machine to confirm the truth or falsity of evolution. It's a theory that makes tremendous sense. Not a hard, scientifically confirmable fact. If someone has a different mystical, intuitive or other spiritual perspective from Darwin's, they will see Darwinist materialism as a rival belief system, not as religiously neutral "scientific fact".
You don't have to be an ignoramus to be an anti-evolutionist; and you don't have to be an anti-evolutionist to be an asshole. Stalin and Jerry Falwell both make my list of history's worst assholes. I understand Jesus to have said (in so many words) that the actual bell curve of Godliness among humans is about as flat as it is among warthogs.

(So take heart Jeff: If humans DO outlaw evolution, so that only outlaws among humans evolve, ALL warthogs will continue to evolve.)

David

[Lenny]

My problem with the ID folks is the idea that some Jewish guy with a long beard created the whole schmeer out of dry nothingness in a few days. Even taking a long view (as opposed to the "Young Earth" belief) intelligent design makes one wonder how stupid this designer was or is. There are a lot of animal forms that make little sense from a design perspective but make far more sense from an evolutionary perspective.

I doubt if you've read that in ID because what little I've read of ID, none of this Jewish bearded fellow that you state above was in there. Funny that.
The "god" perspective is a tough take and most folks I've encountered attempt it occasionally, but I've yet to discover the validity of their particular position, so, 'long or short view' of the designer, your view of the stupidity factor stands to the same criteria: when you get to "know" as much as the designer then I'll take into account the matter you posit. Your noting of the conflict between designer and evolution is lost on me, as you've not read ID material, only those that are pushing their religious-political (probably from the media) view of said material.


My thought is that the creative element, or intelligence, if you will, is love. Every living thing expresses love in one way or another therefore all life is an expression of love. I even take it further and suggest love is the misunderstood force that holds everything together; that the so called "atomic force" is actually love.

Well, what can I say? I can see the fullness of language, as does science, escapes not only me. Jeff, you might be right, and that would be great if the "unified field theory" reaches that same conclusion, but I doubt if all will find it so. I mean, I doubt if those that practice Islam will reach the same conclusion that you and John (the Bible guy, not Lennon) have come to. And history seems to fly in the face of your notions of physics.


I'm not going on a legal campaign to force the teaching of my theory in schools. The evidence is in and the theory of evolution is what should be taught. Why evolution began in the first place fits squarely in the "mystery" camp and I have no problem teaching that. For those who have trouble dealing with the concept of mystery, religion was invented to fill that gap. (And for a few less noble reasons as well.) -Jeff

From your succinct writing, it is obvious you need not campaign to have your theory taught in school as it already is. However move on: your correct notion that evolution was posited due to the "mystery" of unanswerable questions. But evolution falls short in the answer, and now ID has come forward address the same "mystery". And you write of "design", well when viewed from the notion of design, evolution does not answer the "higher complexity" approach. Darwin and others today have trouble explaining the eye and how more complex structures come forth from simple structures, of which any single element is not present, cannot work.
Now you all know I am not that smart, and there was a heck of a thread around recently that Einstein had no 'god beliefs' and that was A-OK. But the head of the Genome Project came out to the world a while back about his new belief in the 'god notion' due to the design aspect, yet that is not acceptable. Funny that too.

[Lenny]

These are my premises:
1. The Constitution serves as a limit on all of the states.
2. The Establishment clause prohibits teaching one religion over another.
3. Intelligent Design is Religion, not science.
Therefore all states are prohibited from teaching intelligent design as science as a matter of Constitutional Law.
ID is an intentionally anti-science and anti-intellectual philosophy. To point that out is not 'snobbish' but simple observation.

Your first premise is refreshingly compact. If only the rest of those that utilize political means to their ends would be so clear, we could do away with most of our laws, no?
That same document does not have the words "education, science, teaching nor religion" with the 1st Amendment Section excepted. Your second premise is also interesting, as initiated (very controversial as to intent, noting the historical perspective and derivations from such) and outcome. It is your third premise that falls far short of the matter. You declaring ID to be a religion does not make it so. Yes, there are those that wish to turn ID into a religion, but that is not necessarily the thrust of the matter. Further more we are back to states rights. If the collective state of Louisiana, as a whole, wants to teach ID, the promulgated federalism of your first premise comes into question. Since such matters are always tied into federal funding (again, where does that come from in the Constitution?) the good state may forgo that portion to that particular matter.
Oh, again, your statement that ID is anti-this-or-that is quite the opposite. Intelligent Design serves to question the mechanisms of evolution and that when science is asked to affirm their initial theory (of evolution) it falls short. Perturbs them to no end, with a result of the media's negative approach to ID.
One does not question 'the high priests' of science.
Nor does one bother the children with such notions questioning designs and functions. Didn't the state make a guy drink hemlock because of the same notion of questioning authorities and leading the children astray with such questions? Evolution, eh? Yeah, we've really evolved since Socrates!

[Braggi]

I doubt if you've read that in ID because what little I've read of ID, none of this Jewish bearded fellow that you state above was in there. Funny that. ...

I've heard several ID "experts" interviewed on the radio. Although carefully avoided in conversation, the underlying ID "truth" is that the Jewish guy with the long beard is the answer to all the mysteries. You'd have to not pay attention to miss it. ID is just a poorly veiled attempt to get creationism taught in the schools on a par with evolution. There is no comparison. Evolution is a scientific theory and development of it is a scientific curriculum. ID isn't science. It's religion.


... Your noting of the conflict between designer and evolution is lost on me, as you've not read ID material, only those that are pushing their religious-political (probably from the media) view of said material. ...

Lenny, you don't know what I've read. ID and evolution are in conflict because of the politics and religious agenda, which is very clear, of the proponents of ID. It ain't science, Lenny.


... And history seems to fly in the face of your notions of physics....

I don't think so.


... But evolution falls short in the answer, and now ID has come forward address the same "mystery". And you write of "design", well when viewed from the notion of design, evolution does not answer the "higher complexity" approach. Darwin and others today have trouble explaining the eye and how more complex structures come forth from simple structures, of which any single element is not present, cannot work. ...

This is a mantra of the ID crowd, but Darwin's most basic theories explained all this quite well. Read up.


... But the head of the Genome Project came out to the world a while back about his new belief in the 'god notion' due to the design aspect, yet that is not acceptable. Funny that too.

Not acceptable to whom, Lenny? Another "straw man."

-Jeff

[PeriodThree]

Hi Lenny,

So if I am reading you right, you believe that...

1) Intelligent Design is not a religion
2) Even if it were a religion, States Rights means Louisiana has the right to teach religion

You wrote a lot more, but basically #1 has been pretty fully decided by the Dover case, and as a matter of law you are simply wrong in your understanding of the law as it pertains to the Constitution in #2.

If I misread you, and either you do believe ID is a religion, or you don't believe Louisiana has the 'right' to teach Intelligent Design (or to teach religion, which amounts to the same thing) then let me know.

Otherwise, well, this is a resolved issue. Intelligent Design is not science.

[Lenny]

I've heard several ID "experts" interviewed on the radio. Although carefully avoided in conversation, the underlying ID "truth" is that the Jewish guy with the long beard is the answer to all the mysteries. You'd have to not pay attention to miss it. ID is just a poorly veiled attempt to get creationism taught in the schools on a par with evolution. There is no comparison. Evolution is a scientific theory and development of it is a scientific curriculum. ID isn't science. It's religion.

Dfn Science:knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena.
So materialism is The Only approach to The Truth, eh?
I don't think so. Well, it ain't the British approach to Science, true that. The Huxley family pretty much brought that to the fore, by narrowing and terminating the methodological naturalism that the rest of Europe followed.
But again you've bested me there, as I've not heard much of the issue on the radio. However I don't listen to KPFA as much as I used to. As stated, most of the mass media, feels the same as you about the matter. However I did read portions of Dembski's Intelligent Design who is the guy that started all this. Outside of Plato & Aristotle, who had some crazy notion that the universe was 'telological' in nature. And I am pretty sure neither was Jewish, but both had beards, as far as we know (which ain't much in Plato's case). I suggest you go to a source such as Dembski and open your mind to some new thinking.
As stated previously, those children are not taught "science" as they are taught about historical science, like evolution. Yes, they can be given the methodology, etc but they are not "scientists". So why not teach them the historical approach to science, which asks a whole different set of questions, and thus include ID? I really don't know what you mean by "on par with evolution", so I this is a bit of answer to that notion. Evolution IS a historical science approach, thus it is THEORY, and not operational science, and to this date never has been. The ID approach can and does leave out any "religious" notion, as does science.


Lenny, you don't know what I've read. ID and evolution are in conflict because of the politics and religious agenda, which is very clear, of the proponents of ID. It ain't science, Lenny.

Well, my error in assuming you read more than one-wing material, or attempt to read source literature, relying instead on what others have predigested. I find myself having to do the same at times. I too try to limit that crap. And you are right that some folks ON EVERY SIDE of any fence are utilizing the antagonistic approach to "their" truth, thus promulgating negative stereotypes of "the other" with political/religious agendas. A pox on both houses.
Still, try reading the above mentioned book a bit.

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --> <!-- using waccobburl --> Quote:
Lenny wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=63405#post63405)
... But evolution falls short in the answer, and now ID has come forward address the same "mystery". And you write of "design", well when viewed from the notion of design, evolution does not answer the "higher complexity" approach. Darwin and others today have trouble explaining the eye and how more complex structures come forth from simple structures, of which any single element is not present, cannot work. ...


This is a mantra of the ID crowd, but Darwin's most basic theories explained all this quite well. Read up.

Is that why the "mystery" still lingers, eh? None can put it to rest, including Darwin and his problem with evolution of the eye.

Quote:
Lenny wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=63405#post63405)
... But the head of the Genome Project came out to the world a while back about his new belief in the 'god notion' due to the design aspect, yet that is not acceptable. Funny that too.


Not acceptable to whom, Lenny? Another "straw man." -Jeff

Again, you lose me, Jeff. Simply pointing out that some smart people change their minds about basic things. You're smart, can you change yours? Read up and find out. Coming out publicly with a different mind set IS scary, and necessary. This guy did his, as so many prior to him. Not a straw man, just a factoid.

[Lenny]

Hi Lenny,
So if I am reading you right, you believe that...
1) Intelligent Design is not a religion
2) Even if it were a religion, States Rights means Louisiana has the right to teach religion
You wrote a lot more, but basically #1 has been pretty fully decided by the Dover case, and as a matter of law you are simply wrong in your understanding of the law as it pertains to the Constitution in #2.
If I misread you, and either you do believe ID is a religion, or you don't believe Louisiana has the 'right' to teach Intelligent Design (or to teach religion, which amounts to the same thing) then let me know.
Otherwise, well, this is a resolved issue. Intelligent Design is not science.

Again, thank you for clarification and "getting me".
1. Intelligent design is NOT a religion. We agree.
2. Your second point "if" statement does not follow from the first, nor of anything I've posted, and the straw man argument you pose follows nothing I've stated, but you are free to go any which way you choose, however you chose the wrong way (premise) and arrive at the wrong destination (conclusion). However we've reached a higher point than most: we can agree on basic definitions (rarely done now-a-days) but the syntax of your argument is lacking the communicative part, i.e. you are writing rebuttals to yourself, not me.
But you best me here, what is the "Dover Case"? And I will await your summation.
But STILL, your contention that ID is not a science does not really make it so. It is a "historical" not "observational" science, much the same as evolution.
Now I know I am bested by my betters, however please note that you guys saying something is or is not, does not affirm your statements. It affirms that fact that you make such, but itself is not proof. Please, spare me those opinions for brevity's sake.

[PeriodThree]

Intelligent Design is Creationism, and as such, is religion.

The Dover case was the most recent case in which ID lost and lost big. It was decided by a judge who was appointed by the current President Bush.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

You argued that Lousiana had a States Rights right to teach Intelligent Design. Or did I misread you?

Intelligent Design is not a 'Science' in any way because it makes statements which can not be falsified.



Again, thank you for clarification and "getting me".
1. Intelligent design is NOT a religion. We agree.
2. Your second point "if" statement does not follow from the first, nor of anything I've posted, and the straw man argument you pose follows nothing I've stated, but you are free to go any which way you choose, however you chose the wrong way (premise) and arrive at the wrong destination (conclusion). However we've reached a higher point than most: we can agree on basic definitions (rarely done now-a-days) but the syntax of your argument is lacking the communicative part, i.e. you are writing rebuttals to yourself, not me.
But you best me here, what is the "Dover Case"? And I will await your summation.
But STILL, your contention that ID is not a science does not really make it so. It is a "historical" not "observational" science, much the same as evolution.
Now I know I am bested by my betters, however please note that you guys saying something is or is not, does not affirm your statements. It affirms that fact that you make such, but itself is not proof. Please, spare me those opinions for brevity's sake.

[Lenny]

Intelligent Design is Creationism, and as such, is religion.
The Dover case was the most recent case in which ID lost and lost big. It was decided by a judge who was appointed by the current President Bush.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
You argued that Lousiana had a States Rights right to teach Intelligent Design. Or did I misread you?
Intelligent Design is not a 'Science' in any way because it makes statements which can not be falsified.

Thank you for the reference, as it was a great start.
Wow, what a circus! Now I can see why it was called Scopes II.
I do recall hearing about it but paid little mind at the time.
I'm too am glad that I didn't vote for Bush, since the judge he appointed turned out to be as dumb as the guy who appointed him! Although the judge did make a fair observation, "Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy."

I found a couple of amusing and ironic things. Both located in the last portion, "students keep an open mind" and "standard tests" presumably on evolution with the weighted value. And yet parents objected. From the losing side and court transcripts, the whole suit/trial thing appears to have been a "set-up" along the lines of the first Scopes trial!

The offending matter and court issue was based on this below statement to be read to 9th Graders, who were allowed to "opt out" prior to the dangerous material being read to them:
<dl>The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.
With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.
</dl>You are right that ID is not falsifiable, but then is that not the case with evolution as well? Philip Johnson, Berkeley professor of law, asks the affirmative question of evolutionists, "OK, you are right. There is evolution. Please show me the proof" yet he's still awaiting an answer.

But I must concede the fact that the court concluded that ID is not science and in violation of the Enjoined Policy of the First Amendment, and enjoined it from being a maintained policy in Dover School.
The court did this based primarily on your first above statement, that being that ID was tied to Creationism, which is religious based. As the phenomena of ID, as it stands, is less than 20 years old, probably in time, coupled with publications and other bright discussions, it will be reviewed again apart from the religious aspect. Much like gay folks and marrying. One may only hope. And thanks again for the reference.

[Zeno Swijtink]

New legal threat to teaching evolution in the US
(https://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19926643.300?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=mg19926643.300)09 July 2008
From New Scientist Print Edition.
Amanda Gefter


BARBARA FORREST knew the odds were stacked against her. "They had 50 or 60 people in the room," she says. Her opponents included lobbyists, church leaders and a crowd of home-schooled children. "They were wearing stickers, clapping, cheering and standing in the aisles." Those on Forrest's side numbered less than a dozen, including two professors from Louisiana State University, representatives from the Louisiana Association of Educators and campaigners for the continued separation of church and state.

That was on 21 May, when Forrest testified in the Louisiana state legislature on the dangers hidden in the state's proposed Science Education Act. She had spent weeks trying to muster opposition to the bill on the grounds that it would allow teachers and school boards across the state to present non-scientific alternatives to evolution, including ideas related to intelligent design (ID) - the proposition that life is too complicated to have arisen without the help of a supernatural agent.

The act is designed to slip ID in "through the back door", says Forrest, who is a professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University and an expert in the history of creationism. She adds that the bill's language, which names evolution along with global warming, the origins of life and human cloning as worthy of "open and objective discussion", is an attempt to misrepresent evolution as scientifically controversial.

Forrest's testimony notwithstanding, the bill was passed by the state's legislature - by a majority of 94 to 3 in the House and by unanimous vote in the Senate. On 28 June, Louisiana's Republican governor, Piyush "Bobby" Jindal, signed the bill into law. The development has national implications, not least because Jindal is rumoured to be on Senator John McCain's shortlist as a potential running mate in his bid for the presidency.

Born in 1971 to parents recently arrived from India, Jindal is a convert to Roman Catholicism and a Rhodes scholar - hardly the profile of a typical Bible-belt politician. Yet in a recent national television appearance he voiced approval for the teaching of ID alongside evolution. He also enjoys a close relationship with the Louisiana Family Forum (LFF), a lobbying group for the religious right whose mission statement includes "presenting biblical principles" in "centers of influence". It was the LFF which set the bill in motion earlier this year.

"We believe that to teach young people critical thinking skills you have to give them both sides of an issue," says Gene Mills, executive director of the LFF. When asked whether the new law fits with the organisation's religious agenda, Mills told New Scientist: "Certainly it's an extension of it."

The new legislation is the latest manoeuvre in a long-running war to challenge the validity of Darwinian evolution as an accepted scientific fact in American classrooms. Forrest played a pivotal role in the previous battle. It came to a head at a trial in 2005 when US district judge John E. Jones ruled against the Dover area school board in Pennsylvania, whose members had voted that students in high-school biology classes should be encouraged to explore alternatives to evolution and directed to textbooks on ID.

The Dover trial, during which Forrest presented evidence that ID was old-fashioned creationism by another name (New Scientist, 29 October 2005, p 6), revolved around the question of whether ID was science or religion. Jones determined it was the latter, and ruled in favour of the parents who challenged the Dover board on the basis of the provision for separation of church and state in the US constitution.

The strategy being employed in Louisiana by proponents of ID - including the Seattle-based Discovery Institute - is more subtle and potentially more difficult to challenge. Instead of trying to prove that ID is science, they have sought to bestow on teachers the right to introduce non-scientific alternatives to evolution under the banner of "academic freedom".

"Academic freedom is a great thing," says Josh Rosenau of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California. "But if you look at the American Association of University Professors' definition of academic freedom, it refers to the ability to do research and publish." This, he points out, is different to the job high-school teachers are supposed to do. "In high school, you're teaching mainstream science so students can go on to college or medical school, where you need that freedom to explore cutting-edge ideas. To apply 'academic freedom' to high school is a misuse of the term."

"It's very slick," says Forrest. "The religious right has co-opted the terminology of the progressive left... They know that phrase appeals to people."

“It's very slick...The religious right has co-opted the terminology of the progressive left”

The new usage began to permeate public consciousness earlier this year with the release of the documentary film Expelled: No intelligence allowed. Starring actor, game-show host and former Nixon speech-writer Ben Stein, the film argues that academic freedom is under attack in the US from atheist "Darwinists". The film's promoters teamed up with the Discovery Institute to set up the Academic Freedom Petition. Their website provides a "model academic freedom statute on evolution" to serve as a template for sympathetic legislators.

So far, representatives from six states have taken up the idea. In Florida, Missouri, South Carolina and Alabama, bills were introduced but failed. An academic freedom bill now in committee in Michigan is expected to stall there.

Louisiana is another story. A hub of creationist activism since the early 1980s, it was Louisiana that enacted the Balanced Treatment Act, which required that creationism be taught alongside evolution in schools. In a landmark 1987 case known as Edwards vs Aguillard, the US Supreme Court ruled the law unconstitutional, effectively closing the door on teaching "creation science" in public schools. ID was invented soon afterwards as a way of proffering creationist concepts without specific reference to God.

In 2006, the year following the Dover ruling, the Ouachita parish school board in northern Louisiana quietly initiated a new tactic, unanimously approving a science curriculum policy that stated: "Teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught." The idea that evolution has weaknesses, and is therefore not a solid scientific theory, is a recurring theme in ID-related literature. Not long afterwards, the assistant superintendent of the Ouachita parish school system, Frank Hoffman, was elected to the state House of Representatives and joined the House education committee. "I knew then that something was going to happen," says Forrest.

When Jindal was elected governor last year, the stage was set. The LFF approached Ben Nevers, a state senator, who agreed to introduce the Louisiana Academic Freedom Act on their behalf. "They believe that scientific data related to creationism should be discussed when dealing with Darwin's theory," Nevers told the Hammond Daily Star in April. The bill was later amended and renamed the Louisiana Science Education Act. Its final version includes a statement that the law should not be taken as promoting religion.

That way, those who wish to challenge Darwinian evolution have "plausible deniability" that this is intended to teach something unconstitutional, says Eric Rothschild of the Philadelphia-based law firm Pepper Hamilton, which represented the parents at the Dover trial. "They are better camouflaged now."

Supporters of the new law clearly hope that teachers and administrators who wish to raise alternatives to evolution in science classes will feel protected if they do so. The law expressly permits the use of "supplemental" classroom materials in addition to state-approved textbooks. The LFF is now promoting the use of online "add-ons" that put a creationist spin on the contents of various science texts in use across the state, and the Discovery Institute has recently produced Explore Evolution, a glossy text that offers the standard ID critiques of evolution (see "The evolution of creationist literature"). Unlike its predecessor Of Pandas and People, which fared badly during the Dover trial, it does not use the term "intelligent design".

Because the law allows individual boards and teachers to make additions to the science curriculum without clearance from a state authority, the responsibility will lie with parents to mount a legal challenge to anything that appears to be an infringement of the separation of church and state. "In Dover, there were parents and teachers willing to step forward and say, this is not OK," says Rosenau. "But here we're seeing that people are either fine with it or they don't want to say anything because they don't want to be ostracised in their community."

Even if a trial ensues, a victory by the plaintiffs will only mean that some specific supplementary material is ruled unconstitutional - not the law itself. Separate lawsuits will be needed to address each piece of suspicious supplementary material. "This encourages a lot of local brush fires that you have to deal with individually and that makes it very difficult," says Forrest. "This is done intentionally, to get this down to the local level. It's going to be very difficult to even know what's going on."

Ultimately, if a number of suits are successfully tried, a group like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) could take the law itself to court, citing various cases in which it was used to bring religious material into the classroom. Representatives from the ACLU and from Americans United for Separation of Church and State have already told Louisiana state officials that lawsuits will follow if the law is used for religious ends.

In the meantime, Forrest is working to inform teachers about the supplementary materials being made available. "The pressing need for the coming school year is to get the word out for what teachers need to be on alert for," she says.

As to a future Dover-style trial, this time on Forrest's home turf, "I'll be right there," she says, though it's not a prospect she relishes. "I'd like to think I won't have to do this for the rest of my life. Because believe me, I don't do it for fun. It's a duty."

Evolution - Learn more about the struggle to survive in our comprehensive special report (https://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/evolution).

Focus on America - Delve into the science and technology questions facing the USA in our special report (https://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/us).

From issue 2664 of New Scientist magazine, 09 July 2008, page 8-10

The Louisiana Science Education Act

WHAT THE LAW SAYS:

The state... shall allow and assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment... that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied, including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning. (Section 1B)

WHAT OPPONENTS FEAR:

Any Louisiana school official is now free to present evolution and other targeted topics as matters of debate rather than broadly accepted science. Books and other materials that support this view can be used in class alongside standard science texts. The onus will be on parents to spot violations of the rules on separation of church and state.

The evolution of creationist literature

One potential consequence of the 2008 Louisiana Science Education Act could be the appearance - possibly later this year - of anti-evolution textbooks such as "Explore Evolution: The arguments for and against Neo-Darwinism" in schools around the state.

Textbooks lie at the centre of efforts by some religiously motivated groups to discredit evolution in US classrooms. Because of the constitutional principle providing for separation of church and state, evolution cannot be banned from state-funded schools on religious grounds. So the anti-evolution movement has sought to have its favoured alternative, "creation science", taught alongside evolution.

Over the years this approach has given rise to books that superficially resemble standard biology texts but with a creationist message. At first, they freely included the terms "creator" and "creationist" but after the US Supreme Court struck down Louisiana's Balanced Treatment Act in 1987 this was no longer legally acceptable. The result was a new terminology and a new book, Of Pandas and People, first published in 1989, which avoided all mention of creationism in favour of the newly coined "intelligent design". Some officials in the Dover Area School District in Pennsylvania (see main story) tried unsuccessfully to make a later edition of the book available to high-school biology students.

Explore Evolution, published last year, represents the latest chapter in the story. It makes no mention of intelligent design but presents the same general argument - namely, that some features of life are too complex and too tailored to their environment to have arisen by natural selection - and presents evolution as an unresolved debate with credible alternatives.

One excerpt from the book's introductory chapter reads: "Looking at the evidence and comparing the competing explanations will provide the most reliable path to discovering which theory, if any, gives the best account of the evidence at hand. Making the comparison is your job. We're asking you to be part scientist, part detective, and part juror."

[Lenny]

Thanks, Z. Interesting article and perspective.
The picture drawn is the dirty mass of loud,ignorant Southern folks against a couple of noble, egghead professors and a few intelligent colleagues. And so the tone is set.
It goes on to "clarify" the matter, .. "They know that phrase (academic freedom) appeals to people." “It's very slick...The religious right has co-opted the terminology of the progressive left” in a way that leaves no doubt about "right and wrong", eh?

These unwashed masses (presumably) of this Southern state (dirty slave owners) do not want their children to be dictated to by the state after they've been made aware that they may be marginalized in their ignorant belief system. These stupid parents have been made aware that there is an alternative view of things and, by gum, they will told and reminded by the authorities that they are ignorant in their improvable beliefs and need to be ordered to allow the chasm of the state to be drawn and separate them and their children. Hurray! Think globally and act in behalf of the state!
How dare they! After all, they were SLAVE OWNERS!!! (OK, I utilized a little editorial flair of me own, just trying to draw that picture again)

I also like "ID was invented soon afterwards as a way of proffering creationist concepts without specific reference to God." Great statement!
The fact that a Dr. Dembski a mathematician published The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities was published in 1998 makes it true. And it is also true that Mathematics is not Science. But then my statement makes an inference which is not there. Can't do that.

Even though their law states it "will promote critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open to objective discussion" by gum, the powers that be will not let it in for FEAR that a teacher may propose that the king is naked to a bunch of budding "scientist" while "participating in science", as if what is done in high school chem, physics or even biology IS operational science, rather than historical practice of science!
I also like WHAT OPPONENTS FEAR: that parents listen and talk with their children!
The last paragraph also gives insight that "they" want not a mixture of blend of a person's thought, but PURITY, in that ONLY the SCIENCE part of thinking and character will analyze, discern, and come out The Truth: you are an mindless animal who is incapable of controlling your "emotions" which others call "thought" and you can't even KNOW your own "thoughts/emotions" since you only know what your own nervous system tells you. So we will collectively discern the truth and agree upon what is real, good, true, and beautiful. And we will medicate the rest of you that don't follow.
Yes. We get what we deserve. And then the wheel goes out of round and needs correction.

[PeriodThree]

Most of the people who believe in ID _are_ ignorant yokels.

That doesn't make ID wrong, but in our country we have a far greater problem in denigrating achievement than we do in criticizing ignorance.

There is a deep seated resentment of achievement in our country. For a long time the Libertarian/Objectivist wings promoted individual accomplishment in opposition to the moocher/collectivist ideas of liberals.

Somewhere in the last 20 years or so, probably when the racists became Republicans the right decided that there were more stupid people than smart people and changed their strategy accordingly.

You don't have to be racist to be a Republican today, but you pretty much do need to be a Republican to be accepted as a racist.




Thanks, Z. Interesting article and perspective.
The picture drawn is the dirty mass of loud,ignorant Southern folks against a couple of noble, egghead professors and a few intelligent colleagues. And so the tone is set.
It goes on to "clarify" the matter, .. "They know that phrase (academic freedom) appeals to people." “It's very slick...The religious right has co-opted the terminology of the progressive left” in a way that leaves no doubt about "right and wrong", eh?

These unwashed masses (presumably) of this Southern state (dirty slave owners) do not want their children to be dictated to by the state after they've been made aware that they may be marginalized in their ignorant belief system. These stupid parents have been made aware that there is an alternative view of things and, by gum, they will told and reminded by the authorities that they are ignorant in their improvable beliefs and need to be ordered to allow the chasm of the state to be drawn and separate them and their children. Hurray! Think globally and act in behalf of the state!
How dare they! After all, they were SLAVE OWNERS!!! (OK, I utilized a little editorial flair of me own, just trying to draw that picture again)

I also like "ID was invented soon afterwards as a way of proffering creationist concepts without specific reference to God." Great statement!
The fact that a Dr. Dembski a mathematician published The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities was published in 1998 makes it true. And it is also true that Mathematics is not Science. But then my statement makes an inference which is not there. Can't do that.

Even though their law states it "will promote critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open to objective discussion" by gum, the powers that be will not let it in for FEAR that a teacher may propose that the king is naked to a bunch of budding "scientist" while "participating in science", as if what is done in high school chem, physics or even biology IS operational science, rather than historical practice of science!
I also like WHAT OPPONENTS FEAR: that parents listen and talk with their children!
The last paragraph also gives insight that "they" want not a mixture of blend of a person's thought, but PURITY, in that ONLY the SCIENCE part of thinking and character will analyze, discern, and come out The Truth: you are an mindless animal who is incapable of controlling your "emotions" which others call "thought" and you can't even KNOW your own "thoughts/emotions" since you only know what your own nervous system tells you. So we will collectively discern the truth and agree upon what is real, good, true, and beautiful. And we will medicate the rest of you that don't follow.
Yes. We get what we deserve. And then the wheel goes out of round and needs correction.

[Peace Seeker]

Hi everybody:

I think Lenny is correct (if I am getting his point) that "liberal" scientific intellectuals stereotype southerners and fundamentalist Christians in very shallow and degrading ways, without realizing it (let alone trying to do anything to correct that elitist, regionalist and class prejudice). I also think it is embarassingly true, that a huge amount of Intelligent Design rhetoric is coded, proxy language that intolerant, triumphalist fundamentalists have contrived, as camouflage for pushing a very sectarian, narrowly intolerant religious, maybe theocratic agenda. So I think there is plenty of fault to go around for everybody in this mess.

I also think that if everyone who has held forth in this particular thread would really try to hear and appreciate the truth contained in their supposed "adversaries'" posts, we would all become wiser and more balanced thinkers and human beings.

As for me, I don't want religion dragged into the public school curriculum, even by someone who agrees with me 99% on religion and politics. I don't want it, because I don't trust anybody to do it rightly. I think that no matter how the guidelines were written, they would be abused. So I prefer the present "secular humanist" baseline in public schools, even though I myself am a devout Evangelical Christian. I think if we start this covert dragging of religious dogma into public education, we will create a theocratic monstrosity that we won't be able to get rid of, that will be immensely worse than any problem the religious right imagines exists now.

Still, we have to find better, more welcoming ways to respectfully include devout fundamentalist Christians in our "secularist" civic life. And we have to realize what Lenny pointed out: that to many Evangelicals, it feels like "liberals" are brainwashing their kids in ways they don't approve, and telling them that "The Constitution" denies them the right to take that control back, over their own childrens' development and values. I don't think that's actually happening, but I completely understand why many religious rightists believe it is. And I do believe many "liberals" are more intolerant, insulting and ostracizing against conservatives and Evangelican Christians than they (the "liberals") admit to themselves.

When some folks on Waccotalk go on with wild, sexually-laced, sarcastic slurs against Christians, (and I know some of you are yourselves Christians, and apparently think this is OK and hip or something), it's very alienating and offensive for me to read. I don't want to participate at all. I don't want someone trashing things I consider sacred. Or baiting me. Or lecturing me about how "self-righteous" I am being, or any other crap. It's really offensive and alienating for me to read. And I'm a life-longtime skeptic, leftist and iconoclast. It's not as though I'm too dumb or naive or parochial to "get it".

Maybe for some of you this irreverent extreme rowdiness feels cathartic. But it doesn't look very cathartic to me, because if it was, you'd be getting it out of your systems and it would taper off after a while. You wouldn't need to continue doing it endlessly.

I'm not going to continue arguing about all of this, because you were here before me, and you created your relationships and standards before I hit the scene. It's not my place to try to make you change.

But I will say that at least me, and perhaps alot of other people, are avoiding WaccoTalk discussion boards like poison, because they don't want to wade through this kind of stuff. Maybe they would have valuable contributions to make to the discussions, if they felt safe and comfortable enough to join in.

That's my 2 cents.

David

[Sylph]

Lenny, where do you get the idea that the people of Louisiana are being categorized and denigrated as 'ignorant, unwashed, Southern former slave-owners' by the 'intellectuals'? I reread the news article and don't see that at all. Is that your idea of Southerners??? It seems the creationists in Louisiana learned from the Dover case and found a more subtle way to get "ID" teachings into the classroom:
In 2006, the year following the Dover ruling, the Ouachita parish school board in northern Louisiana quietly initiated a new tactic, unanimously approving a science curriculum policy that stated: "Teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught." The idea that evolution has weaknesses, and is therefore not a solid scientific theory, is a recurring theme in ID-related literature. Not long afterwards, the assistant superintendent of the Ouachita parish school system, Frank Hoffman, was elected to the state House of Representatives and joined the House education committee. "I knew then that something was going to happen," says Forrest.
Religion, even under the guise of ID, should stay out of the science classroom.

[PeriodThree]

Hi everybody:
So I think there is plenty of fault to go around for everybody in this mess.


If I understand you correctly, my side is guilty of 'elitist, regionalist and class prejudice' while the other side is 'pushing a very sectarian, narrowly intolerant religious, maybe theocratic agenda.'

I don't quite see where there is 'plenty of fault to go around.'

We are, according to the conservative evangelicals, in a culture war. They, and arguably your, side have taken anti-science and anti-reason, and anti-humanistic positions.

If you want to define thinking as 'elitist' than bring it on.

[Peace Seeker]

To say that only those who agree with you are 'thinking' is elitist.

I don't think you are some inferior being which "doesn't think," just because I see your ideas as poorly reasoned.

I also react very negatively to intolerant, dogmatic Christians, because they are a threat to me, and to people and causes I care passionately about. My fear translates into anger. One way to discharge that anger and suppress that fear is to construct a demeaning picture of those I fear as inferior. But that won't lead me to any constructive or useful insight about them.

Imagining that all people in a faith community have the same faults as some members of that community you strongly dislike will lead you into stereotyping attitudes and conduct. That also won't yield any constructive or useful insight about them.

I recommend seeking ways to build mutual respect with people and groups we are afraid of.

David





If I understand you correctly, my side is guilty of 'elitist, regionalist and class prejudice' while the other side is 'pushing a very sectarian, narrowly intolerant religious, maybe theocratic agenda.'

I don't quite see where there is 'plenty of fault to go around.'

We are, according to the conservative evangelicals, in a culture war. They, and arguably your, side have taken anti-science and anti-reason, and anti-humanistic positions.

If you want to define thinking as 'elitist' than bring it on.

[PeriodThree]

Your use of 'elitist' is clearly intended as a deeply personal attack which echos the language forms of American Populism.

Populist politicians know that stupid people don't like to feel stupid. The easiest way for stupid people to not feel stupid is for their leaders to attack the smart people for the sin of being smart.

They have been so successful at this trick that you are able to sit on your high 'peace' making throne and equate the evil of pushing a theocracy with this sin of being elitist and write that there is plenty of blame to go around.



To say that only those who agree with you are 'thinking' is elitist.


The word 'elitist' in modern America is right wing hate speech.

You also twisted my words in order to use your hate speech.



I recommend seeking ways to build mutual respect with people and groups we are afraid of.

David

These 'people and groups' have declared 'culture war' on me, and you use their language in order to criticize me. That makes it pretty clear you have no respect for me or my views.

[Lenny]

Lenny, where do you get the idea that the people of Louisiana are being categorized and denigrated as 'ignorant, unwashed, Southern former slave-owners' by the 'intellectuals'? I reread the news article and don't see that at all. Is that your idea of Southerners??? It seems the creationists in Louisiana learned from the Dover case and found a more subtle way to get "ID" teachings into the classroom:
Religion, even under the guise of ID, should stay out of the science classroom.

Sylph, allow me NOT to apologize for my rant, only in that no where does it say that Southern folks are unwashed, ignorant, or racist, except for me. Nerves touched by me, but not alone. As a Northerner, actually a Californio, we stereotypical perceive Southerners as such and I used it. Why? The tone of the original article gave me that Eastern-Intellectual-Liberal attitude, that promulgates the stereotypical Southern icons, in the very first paragraph, and I exploited what I perceived to be an unconscious agenda of the writer. May be "projection" on my part, but a blank page to a reporter/writer is simply nothing. The way a writer puts it, gives me more than one message.
And for the record, like the folks that originally tried this experiment, I too do not want a religion "taught' to our kids in schools. But and also what I don't want is to have religion shut out at every single instance by government fiat. Nor do I want to have our country's history denied of the heritage and role religion played in the formation and development.
And you are right, Sylph, those folks in Louisiana were smart enough to get around the Federal courts of those damn Yankees.

[Sylph]

I also have noticed that Christians are mocked and disrespected on this board sometimes. Of course, all Christians are not the obnoxious fundamentalists we see, for instance, marching against gays, any more than all Muslims are terrorists. Everyone's religion should be respected on Wacco.

Creationists and proponents of ID can be highly intelligent and educated, like certain relatives of mine. My sis in law and her husband are medical professionals with advanced degrees who happen to believe that the earth is 6,000 years old! They sincerely believe that taking the Creator out of the equation (in science and elsewhere) will lead to all manner of social evils, just like that Ben Stein movie. They have blinders firmly in place to be able to ignore evidence of the great age of the earth and evidence of evolution. I love them dearly, and simply must agree to disagree. I don't buy the dichotomy of Evolutionism/Godlessness. We can believe in God and speculate that he possibly orchestrated creation in some way, and also believe that evolution best explains our amazing world.

I concur with David:
I recommend seeking ways to build mutual respect with people and groups we are afraid of.

[Sylph]

Well, Lenny, Thanks for your Non-apology :)!
I read the article a third time and still don't see the 'arrogance of the intellectual left' or any slur against 'stupid Southerners'. Sure, those of us who know we are right (tongue firmly in cheek) can seem arrogant. I guess I responded because many of my family are Southerners and mostly very intelligent and well educated. Some of them are Bible literalists, and they emphatically do not believe in evolution. To them, we are in a culture war, pitting the Godless liberals against the Bible believers.

[MsTerry]

I read the article looking for a disclaimer
EVOLUTION IS BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
never found it.
I we can't accept Intelligent Design next to Evolution, we should state that evolution is a theory that can not be reproduced in a lab setting nor can it be proved, they can only show fragments to support a theory.

To call people "yokels", must be a desperate attempt to discredit oneself.



Well, Thanks for your Non-apology :)!
I read the article a third time and still don't see the 'arrogance of the intellectual left' or any slur against 'stupid Southerners'. Sure, those of us who know we are right (tongue firmly in cheek) can seem arrogant. I guess I responded because many of my family are Southerners and mostly very intelligent and well educated. Some of them are Bible literalists, and they emphatically do not believe in evolution. To them, we are in a culture war, pitting the Godless liberals against the Bible believers.

[Sylph]

Although I would not call anyone a 'yokel', I reject ID as equal to the theory of evolution as do most scientists. Just because we can't explain everything does not mean we need to resort to magical thinking that is intertwined with religious belief. Unfortunately, most Americans disagree with me and want creationism taught in school. Well, 54% also believe in ESP, 51% believe antibiotics kill viruses, 40% believe in astrology. Collectively, we are woefully unscientific. Good thing we can't simply vote on what is the truth and should be taught in school!

Nine out of 10 scientists (91 percent) felt the concept of intelligent design was unscientific and the same number responded that it was a religious view
A vast majority (93 percent) of the scientists were not aware of "any scientifically valid evidence or an alternate scientific theory that challenges the fundamental principles of the theory of evolution"
Almost all scientists (97 percent) said they did not use the intelligent design concept in their research
Ninety percent of the responding scientists stated that they felt no scientific evidence supports intelligent design, while 2 percent were unsure
Approximately 7 percent felt that intelligent design had some support from scientific evidence
Some 84 percent felt acceptance of the evolution theory was "consistent with believing in God<DIR>https://www.talkreason.org/articles/scientists.cfm#Intelligent_design_is_NOT_a_science:_Baylor
</DIR>

[Lenny]

Although I would not call anyone a 'yokel', I reject ID as equal to the theory of evolution as do most scientists. Just because we can't explain everything does not mean we need to resort to magical thinking that is intertwined with religious belief. Unfortunately, most Americans disagree with me and want creationism taught in school. Well, 54% also believe in ESP, 51% believe antibiotics kill viruses, 40% believe in astrology. Collectively, we are woefully unscientific. Good thing we can't simply vote on what is the truth and should be taught in school!

Nine out of 10 scientists (91 percent) felt the concept of intelligent design was unscientific and the same number responded that it was a religious view
A vast majority (93 percent) of the scientists were not aware of "any scientifically valid evidence or an alternate scientific theory that challenges the fundamental principles of the theory of evolution"
Almost all scientists (97 percent) said they did not use the intelligent design concept in their research
Ninety percent of the responding scientists stated that they felt no scientific evidence supports intelligent design, while 2 percent were unsure
Approximately 7 percent felt that intelligent design had some support from scientific evidence
Some 84 percent felt acceptance of the evolution theory was "consistent with believing in God<dir>https://www.talkreason.org/articles/scientists.cfm#Intelligent_design_is_NOT_a_science:_Baylor
</dir>

Nor would I label one a "yokel" for ID belief.
And NO scientist could use the concept of ID in their research. Do I have to read the whole article to find out how the other 3% COULD possibly do so? The very method of science cannot include open ended speculation that ID dwells upon. It simply could not be "done" in science on any operation at all! And I doubt if ID could even be dealt with in such a way!
It is simply a method of thinking outside the box of science, not to be included within. It's a brandy/cigars moment at the end of the day, after reviewing the methodology, the question, the physical evidence, hypothesis, and all the other SCIENCEY stuff. Gadz, it doesn't even make sense to view it in any other light!
Besides what scientists think is not really important, helpful, but not primary on how we proceed as human beings. And that is where it comes down to: as evolution is true, then we are animals, not any different than any other animal. But the reality is that zoological taxonomic differentiation via evolution is not all their is when considering the whole of personhood. And there lays the issue and we step off the edge and into the abyss. Some must have us believe or operate in the "belief" that we are nothing more than physicality, bestial in origin (lots of support when looking around) and nothing more. And that we cannot "know" anything as such a notion is an absurdity due to the "fact" that we may only "know" what are nervous system relays to our brain, which is nothing but a storage box of memories that are inaccurate. In that world we find ourselves having the "will to power" in order to function, rather than in a Natural State in or out of harmony with all around.
During the Turman administration, almost 70% of scientists warned the President that dropping the bomb would "burn" all nitrogen in our atmosphere, which is about 75%. That discipline stands for one reason: to prove themselves wrong.
So to place too much weight on the scientist as a sole seeker of "the truth" is as dangerous as doing so for any group, whether it's the arts, sports, entertainment, religion, education, or any other pursuit. I've never found it easy being human, let alone green.

[Lenny]

Well, Lenny, Thanks for your Non-apology :)!
I read the article a third time and still don't see the 'arrogance of the intellectual left' or any slur against 'stupid Southerners'. Sure, those of us who know we are right (tongue firmly in cheek) can seem arrogant. I guess I responded because many of my family are Southerners and mostly very intelligent and well educated. Some of them are Bible literalists, and they emphatically do not believe in evolution. To them, we are in a culture war, pitting the Godless liberals against the Bible believers.

Sorry about missing all the Southern vs Eastern-Liberal part. It IS set in the South, so there I am guilty for the taking off. And Louisiana educational system was usually at the bottom of all the states, until California took over a couple of years ago. I still think the tone is as I wrote it, especially in the first paragraph, and a few others in the middle.
And as you point out, when we are "right" we dang near are automatically arrogant; comes with the territory. I would also imagine that those intelligent ones in your family would have to be so especially if they were exposed and have to deal with those Bible literalists. That approach will sharpen the sword best, in my opinion.
And your family is right: this is a cultural war pitting the Godless liberals against them. No tongue, no cheek, just true. Look around. Not an easy position to maintain, but in their perspective, they are not wrong, and if you can bring levity into their life about the issues, headway will be made. I guarantee it! Best of luck.

[Lenny]

I read the article looking for a disclaimer
EVOLUTION IS BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
never found it.
If we can't accept Intelligent Design next to Evolution, we should state that evolution is a theory that can not be reproduced in a lab setting nor can it be proved, they can only show fragments to support a theory.


Part of the issue is that evolution, as well as ID, are attempts to corral information that others gather in their work, in the field. I think both are views that attempt to answer questions and concerns about the origins of folks.
Both can attempt to accommodate to the information gathered and fed into them.
Neither can be "proved" by reproduction in the lab setting, and so there's a rub.

[Lenny]

I also have noticed that Christians are mocked and disrespected on this board sometimes. Of course, all Christians are not the obnoxious fundamentalists we see, for instance, marching against gays, any more than all Muslims are terrorists. Everyone's religion should be respected on Wacco.
Creationists and proponents of ID can be highly intelligent and educated, like certain relatives of mine. My sis in law and her husband are medical professionals with advanced degrees who happen to believe that the earth is 6,000 years old! They sincerely believe that taking the Creator out of the equation (in science and elsewhere) will lead to all manner of social evils, just like that Ben Stein movie. They have blinders firmly in place to be able to ignore evidence of the great age of the earth and evidence of evolution. I love them dearly, and simply must agree to disagree. I don't buy the dichotomy of Evolutionism/Godlessness. We can believe in God and speculate that he possibly orchestrated creation in some way, and also believe that evolution best explains our amazing world.

Your in-laws make me wonder about how they do answer the nature of the geologic time. Or the nature of God. I mean, is God a trickster, putting old stuff around to fool us? I doubt if they believe that. And I hope they don't believe Satan is doing that, as both would be a violation of that nature.
And, BTW, evolution DOES give the best method of explaining our amazing world and when seasoned with a taste of ID, the flavor may be considered divine, especially in light of saltlessness of plain old evolution.
Oh, and your in-laws are right: taking the creator out of the social equation will lead to all manners of social evils. Of course, without the Western background which includes Judeo-Christian values on human life, person hood and what evolved into property, social "ills" would truly exist. But denied. How could it be "ill" to, say, rid ourselves of those considered less than contributory to the social good? Like the old, unborn, insane, imbeciles, prisoners, homosexuals (no breeding for the state), resistors, and with genetics coming into the light, those that may potentially breed with the outcome that is considered undesirable. And who sets that criteria? So, why not legalize drugs, have sexual license with whomever, and eat whatever we want? No restraints! None. Imagine that! There is no hell, as Mr. Lennon composed.

[Lenny]

Most of the people who believe in ID _are_ ignorant yokels.That doesn't make ID wrong, but in our country we have a far greater problem in denigrating achievement than we do in criticizing ignorance.

PT, this is the THIRD time I've tried to respond but my clumsy fingers and the shortcuts of the programs running in my task bar negate response to your scree but a response is mandated. I know my rant was cathartic and I hope yours begins the healing process. You're worth it.
I know folks believing in ID don't make it right or wrong. And we do have a problem around here about criticizing ignorance. We know it does no good to do so, as those who are called ignorant will stay in their cave and start throwing rocks back out due to all the yelling and name calling. Surely not a way to end the issue or lead them out of the darkness. And in the end, that is what "education" means.
Calling folks yokels does about the same thing, but in the end we are all ignorant yokels on so many different matters, are we not? Besides, yokels live in a place that I love and admire: down to, and on earth.


There is a deep seated resentment of achievement in our country. For a long time the Libertarian/Objectivist wings promoted individual accomplishment in opposition to the moocher/collectivist ideas of liberals.

Much ink, $ and electrons have been spent on the pursuit of sports, beauty and many other trivial matters that do nothing to gain further insight or help the human condition, and often denigrate all that may be worthy. On that we may certainly agree. It is your last sentence that I pray you respond to, as there's not enough there to feed my brain on what you were getting to, and I find it interesting.


Somewhere in the last 20 years or so, probably when the racists became Republicans the right decided that there were more stupid people than smart people and changed their strategy accordingly.You don't have to be racist to be a Republican today, but you pretty much do need to be a Republican to be accepted as a racist.

I know Barry Goldwater was more than 40 years ago and I doubt if he was a racist, being Jewish and all. I don't know how you link the racist notion to Repubs. I do know that the Repubs make the same claim as you regarding the strategy of the stupid, but they put that on the Dems.
As a help, aren't you the person that grew up with racists in the family? If so, consider taking pride in your genetic background and stop looking for racists under every bush & tree. Self identity can be a good thing and some of that involves ethnic/racial pride, not superiority per se, but simple
in saying "yes" to some of the good things done by your tribe. Even us mud folks can do that, so maybe it's your turn, yes? Just avoid the haters, which shouldn't be too hard, no?

[Zeno Swijtink]

And, BTW, evolution DOES give the best method of explaining our amazing world and when seasoned with a taste of ID, the flavor may be considered divine, especially in light of saltlessness of plain old evolution.

Adding a bit of ID for flavor to a generally evolutionary account, the details of which are still debated as in my posting

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?t=38872

seems inconsistent with basic physics to me, in particular with the law of conservation of energy.

Physics does not allow a spiritual being popping up out of nowhere and rearranging the DNA of a critter somewhat so that it, or the next generation, develops eyes, etc. This would create something out of nothing (natural or physical).

So opening up a conversation between Evolution and ID, if only for the purposes of encouraging students' skills of critical thinking, presupposes in these students the ability to have an overview of huge areas of scientific thinking.

[PeriodThree]

It is your last sentence that I pray you respond to, as there's not enough there to feed my brain on what you were getting to, and I find it interesting.


I had written "For a long time the Libertarian/Objectivist wings promoted individual accomplishment in opposition to the moocher/collectivist ideas of liberals."

I was trying to allude to the Ayn Rand/Atlas Shrugged branch of mostly Libertarian/Objectivist 'Conservatives.'

Their argument was that the weak should not be allowed to mooch off of the strong. There are some deep issues of human values in the question. Do the winners in our economy have a duty to the losers? Etc.



I know Barry Goldwater was more than 40 years ago and I doubt if he was a racist, being Jewish and all. I don't know how you link the racist notion to Repubs.


Before the civil rights era the racists were Democrats, as a key example see George Wallace, Democrat, and 'Segregation forever' advocate.

From the 40's on those racists moved to the Republican side, for example, see Strom Thurmond and the Dixiecrats.

There are other wings of the Republican party, but all successful Republican's from Nixon (and maybe earlier) on have received most of the racist vote.



I do know that the Repubs make the same claim as you regarding the strategy of the stupid, but they put that on the Dems.


Before the current Bush I could accept it as a toss up, with both sides accusing the other. The current Bush administration has introduced politics into science policy at a far far deeper level than any previous administration.

[Lenny]

So I think there is plenty of fault to go around for everybody in this mess.

Merciful deletion to get to the agreement points.


As for me, I don't want religion dragged into the public school curriculum, even by someone who agrees with me 99% on religion and politics. I don't want it, because I don't trust anybody to do it rightly. I think that no matter how the guidelines were written, they would be abused.

Bravo and well put.
Now if we can get George Bush and the future president to stop funding "religious welfare" (faith based services) programs those who have religion MIGHT be safe for a while longer. And the opposite is even truer.


So I prefer the present "secular humanist" baseline in public schools, even though I myself am a devout Evangelical Christian. I think if we start this covert dragging of religious dogma into public education, we will create a theocratic monstrosity that we won't be able to get rid of, that will be immensely worse than any problem the religious right imagines exists now.

PS, there you go again, playing fast and loose with the language. Did I bore you with an Amos n' Andy TV show I saw awhile back? Right in the MIDDLE of this TV show, the daughter says the entire Lord's Prayer as dad puts her to sleep. I got up off the floor and stood amazed that such a "travesty" occurred and America did not burn down. I mean in 1954 such an act! How harmful was that?
But as you KIND OF PUT it, to have dogma taught would produce a monster, and my letters against it would be with yours. How about a compromise? How about a factual history class about the founding of this country and the role religion had in it? Not the history of Howard Zinn, but something closer to the facts, not simply the interpretation of such? And as for school prayer? How about what's used prior to Congress' meet? Or 30 seconds of silence? I know that's been outlawed by the judiciary, but what the heck; they're just another bunch of guys, eh?

[quote=Peace Seeker;63880]Still, we have to find better, more welcoming ways to respectfully include devout fundamentalist Christians in our "secularist" civic life. And we have to realize what Lenny pointed out: that to many Evangelicals, it feels like "liberals" are brainwashing their kids in ways they don't approve, and telling them that "The Constitution" denies them the right to take that control back, over their own childrens' development and values. I don't think that's actually happening, but I completely understand why many religious rightists believe it is. And I do believe many "liberals" are more intolerant, insulting and ostracizing against conservatives and Evangelican Christians than they (the "liberals") admit to themselves.

PS, you frame the issue as "right" "evangelicals" and "liberals" "secularists" and thus you doom what you claim to stand upon! Such rhetoric will mostly produce a response that the media has conditioned us give. I know you want an expedient answer to it all, but, sorry. No can do. How about a series of questions to parents? Ones that will lead them down a path to get to an end that we first agree upon, after much dialogue? One of the first series of questions may be about outcome: what do we want our children to "be" or "do" upon completion? Or "what is the purpose of eduction"?
Should the 1870's German model of 50 minute classes designed to help the student NOT think of life issues, but rather produce servants for the state be a model? You know what I think about it by that question!
In any light, the freedom given on this site allows us to discuss these and many issues, regardless of how others perceive our inadequacies, feelings, and positions. We have to keep the focus on the issues, like that hand pointing to the moon.

[Lenny]

If I understand you correctly, my side is guilty of 'elitist, regionalist and class prejudice' while the other side is 'pushing a very sectarian, narrowly intolerant religious, maybe theocratic agenda.'
I don't quite see where there is 'plenty of fault to go around.'

Allow me to help your vision with a few questions.
Do you see half of the picture? It was my declaration that the article was written with a regionalism point of view (New England) of Southerners (because of location, Louisiana), and I introduced the class notion with my rhetorical style in my scree, especially in my opening statement. And I did paint that picture as elitist. If you see that from what I wrote, then your understanding is correct.
However that is half of what you saw. Although I can't speak for what you saw in Peace Seeker's retort, in mine I did indicate strongly that there is a very sectarian, narrowly intolerant religious portion in this milieu. But it was not set as two opposing and contrasting issues. At least that was not my thrust. No, it was worse, that point of view was all one-in-the-same: religious intolerant, sectarian, regionalism giving an elitist position and thrusting authority upon folks that simply want to continue in their own way.


We are, according to the conservative evangelicals, in a culture war. They, and arguably your, side have taken anti-science and anti-reason, and anti-humanistic positions.
If you want to define thinking as 'elitist' than bring it on.

Well, it's already here, and both sides brought it.
According to Air America there is a type of 'cultural war' in a very real sense. And it's Marxist to boot: there IS a thesis, an anti-thesis, and some time will be a synthesis. I've listened to Air America and some of KPFB KPFA with the same declaration of "cultural war", however the language is converted over to "struggle", but it's all the same. Nothing new under the sun....

[Lenny]

Your use of 'elitist' is clearly intended as a deeply personal attack which echos the language forms of American Populism.

Your use of the word "deeply" does not follow. Though you may feel deeply, I ask you not allow that to distract you. I doubt also it is "an attack", but you might be right. But I doubt it.


Populist politicians know that stupid people don't like to feel stupid. The easiest way for stupid people to not feel stupid is for their leaders to attack the smart people for the sin of being smart.

I didn't know that about Populist politicians. I trust you are right. Hope to live long enough to read about them. Outside of Huey Long, what others where there in our country? Would like to find out.
And attacking "smart people" may be a ploy, as reasonable people of intelligence do disagree. I fear I may be the only one, but it seems to me that there IS an attitude in the media that all the smart folks are in New England. Do you get that perception? All the fruits & nuts are here on the West coast, all the rubes are in Middle America, and all the yokels are in the South, except Texans which are just plain crazy. And all of those stereotypes seem to be reinforced by the N.Y/New England group, no?


They have been so successful at this trick that you are able to sit on your high 'peace' making throne and equate the evil of pushing a theocracy with this sin of being elitist and write that there is plenty of blame to go around. The word 'elitist' in modern America is right wing hate speech. You also twisted my words in order to use your hate speech.

Wow! Dude, take a breath! There is plenty of blame for all to share. Do you see any from your POV? If not then purity is yours, as well as righteousness, but a side of foolishness will come to you for dessert.
Breath out slowly. I gather you don't like religious folks claiming that same righteous cloak, eh? Can't blame you, but I will if you can't see the log in your own eye, collectively speaking.


These 'people and groups' have declared 'culture war' on me, and you use their language in order to criticize me. That makes it pretty clear you have no respect for me or my views.

Hold on. We would not respond unless we respected you. Get that. Your POV is always up for shots, until you are god, and then we will probably crucify you. There's priors on that, I believe.
As previously noted, there IS a struggle (very Christian in that notion of "good & evil" or "right & wrong" or a teleological ending towards the "good"). I missed the part of "their language". I thought we shared the language, just not the rhetoric nor the syntax and how we use this rhetoric, eh?
Take another deep one PT, have a laugh and get a good nights sleep. You're not alone in passion, but enjoy.

[RichT]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a15KgyXBX24

[Peace Seeker]

You wrote that "The word 'elitist' in modern America is right wing hate speech."

That is not my perception or understanding. The word elitism came from the Left, to describe certain forms of intellectual and class snobbery. The some rightists appropriated that left concept and terminology and misused it to attack the left.

Clarence Thomas accused his critics of racism. That was a rightist misuse of an otherwise valid concept (racism). That misuse by Clarence Thomas didn't mean that the term "racism" suddenly became a form of right-wing hate speech.


Rightists smear intellectuals by branding them "elitist" in dishonest ways, to prevent working class people from listening to what the intellectuals are actually saying.

But even so, there is still a class issue which manifests as elitism, which we do need to examine and remedy. Saying that a particular statement is elitist is not the same as branding a person as "an elitist".

I think that there is a major elitist, condescending component in the polemics and rhetoric many on the left use toward poor whites and toward devout, traditionalist religious believers. Especially (but not solely) toward devout, traditionalist Christians.

During the 1980s, Barbara Ehrenreich spoke with alot of intelligence and depth about this problem, in a talk called "The Rise of Right-Wing Populism." It's still available on tape (The Rise of Right-wing Populism [sound cassette]. Los Angeles: Pacific Tape Library, 1983.)

David



which I heard her delivering, on tape.
David Hoffman

[Lenny]

You wrote that "The word 'elitist' in modern America is right wing hate speech."
That is not my perception or understanding. The word elitism came from the Left, to describe certain forms of intellectual and class snobbery. The some rightists appropriated that left concept and terminology and misused it to attack the left.

My goodness, Noam Chomsky lives!
I know arguments, in part, are based on definitions but now that guys are claiming words to have specific rhetorical meaning is an absurdity beyond the empyreal and approaching the ridiculous!


Clarence Thomas accused his critics of racism. That was a rightist misuse of an otherwise valid concept (racism). That misuse by Clarence Thomas didn't mean that the term "racism" suddenly became a form of right-wing hate speech.

It seems you are writing that there is a "correct" form of the word "racism". Is that it?
There is only ONE racism, and that is not left, right, or center, nor is it "white racism" or "colored racism" or any other form. Your notions of that terms simply allow racial hatred & bias to continue under YOUR flag.


Rightists smear intellectuals by branding them "elitist" in dishonest ways, to prevent working class people from listening to what the intellectuals are actually saying.

That is SO true, just as the hungry have so much time and energy to reason out the philosophical and political issues along with the subtler points of same. <sarcasm mode:off>


But even so, there is still a class issue which manifests as elitism, which we do need to examine and remedy. Saying that a particular statement is elitist is not the same as branding a person as "an elitist". I think that there is a major elitist, condescending component in the polemics and rhetoric many on the left use toward poor whites and toward devout, traditionalist religious believers. Especially (but not solely) toward devout, traditionalist Christians. David Hoffman

You might also throw in the race card as well. Especially world wide, but becoming more so in America: Christians are black for the most part of black, while whites in America are moving away from Christianity, especially in certain demographics like age and wealth. So in the end you will have poor and colored folks as a majority of Christians. wow.
As for "elitist" how much further does anyone wish to expand upon the base definition as, "Someone who believes in rule by an elite group"?
Honest questions: who do YOU think as a Marxist-Christian should rule?
Who do Progressives think should rule? Right wingers?
And can you apply that in terms of "elitist", as in Right Wing Elitists want X, or Progressive Elitist want Y, or Marxist elitist want Z.

[Peace Seeker]

Dear Lenny,

I don't see the issue of Eltiism -- or the word itself, or the political meanings and uses it has, the way you are describe them.

I think it's fairly a straightforward matter to discuss the problem of elitism, without going trough the complex series of confusing definitions and contradictions that you lay out.

I don't believe that what I'm writing and posting has the kind of twisted, obtuse, unrecognized bias that you imply I have.

I don't believe that what I'm writing and posting has the kind of sinister malice that Period3 accuses me of.

I'm simply urging all of us, including myself, to acknowledge that we are at risk of elitism. Here, I mean, by elitism: inaccurate and offensive beliefs, attitudes or conduct which treats others as inferior to ourselves, based on "higher" class status, education, speaking style, and in the issues we are discussing, northern and northeastern condescenscion toward southerners and midwesterners, and religious condescenscion toward devout, traditionalist believers.

Frankly, I think that definition and usage was completely self-evident in all my posts, and I think your complex word-play about other meanings etc. was a tactical and rhetorical pretense. I think taht, even if you were serious about the semantic and politiical arguments you raised. A pretense, because you pretended you couldn't understand what I meant, and then claimed that my post was unclear or too contradictory to have any real value or sense. But I think it was perfectly clear, did have value and made good sense.

You take that posture of pretended confusion fairly often. To me, it comes across as a calculated maneuver that you see as ingenious and funny. To me, it also comes across that you tell yourself you're doing everyone a delicious, mind-expanding favor by posting these kinds of confusing contrarian arguments. But in the process, I think you derail other peoples' valuable attempts to communicate, in a disruptive way.

So I won't try to untangle all the confusing responses you raised about my use of the word and concept "elitism". I hope some readers follow my reasoning and share my concerns. Some clearly do. Others can have discussions about how I'm actually the real elitist, or an unwitting agent of a Christo-fascist theocracy, or a self-righteous asshole, or whatever else they feel they need to vent. That seems like a defensive, confused misuse of time and energy to me. When I don't respond to some of the intense, reactive stuff some people post in response to my ideas, that will usually be the reason.

If I've misjudged you in what I wrote above, I'm sorry.

David

[Lenny]

Adding a bit of ID for flavor to a generally evolutionary account, the details of which are still debated as in my posting

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?t=38872

seems inconsistent with basic physics to me, in particular with the law of conservation of energy.
Physics does not allow a spiritual being popping up out of nowhere and rearranging the DNA of a critter somewhat so that it, or the next generation, develops eyes, etc. This would create something out of nothing (natural or physical).
So opening up a conversation between Evolution and ID, if only for the purposes of encouraging students' skills of critical thinking, presupposes in these students the ability to have an overview of huge areas of scientific thinking.

I am sorry for being so shifty, and I still think that straight OBSERVATIONAL science need never include I.D. Nor can I see it ever working in that setting. The lab is not the place. It is after one leaves the lab and tries to piece it together. Certainly school age folks should have ID brought to them in order to stimulate their arguing abilities if not clarification of what's in the skull full of mush. They are not scientists. Possibly ID comes at the very end, when all the "sciencey" parts, paradigms, and papers, issues, presentations, and conversations are exhausted at least with adults, eh?
So I would not allow ID and thermodynamics to "meet" in terms of science. Or any other physics. For example, scientists can measure up this universe up to about .02 of a second into existence. Don't need any Big Muffin to do so and expect none to be introduced. And like a light beam and electron, they may get closer and closer ad infinitum, and never "meet".
About right?
Students ARE given a huge area of science to begin with and it is only later after the theory do they go into the lab to "practice" observation. It is amazing at how many folks "look" at phenomena and don't see it. Were I a teacher and the student answered the question, "what do you see" after peering into a mic, and their answer was anything like, "the handiwork of God", that one would get an "F" in view of the hour lecture on cell mitosis. And so it goes.

[Lenny]

I had written "For a long time the Libertarian/Objectivist wings promoted individual accomplishment in opposition to the moocher/collectivist ideas of liberals."

I was trying to allude to the Ayn Rand/Atlas Shrugged branch of mostly Libertarian/Objectivist 'Conservatives.'
Their argument was that the weak should not be allowed to mooch off of the strong. There are some deep issues of human values in the question. Do the winners in our economy have a duty to the losers? Etc.

Can't answer your question without that notion of "human values" you stated. Some state that based on VALUES, which I suppose has to do with "Christian values" then the answer is clearly "yes". Outside of those values we may get into "ethics" and I am lost. Actually, I am much lost outside of the aforementioned values, based on historical precedent. With the exception of Japan, this nation IS the most "Christian" nation in the 1st world. The Ayn Rand approach from her writings did not give much in that nature although her characters were driven and "super" folks and her style of writing was to have the glory of the individual exalted over the "corporate and statist" mind set. It's been too long so I do not recall her view on the matter. I am sure there are sycophants who twist her work into some grotesquery and attempt to push it on others. Piffle.



Before the civil rights era the racists were Democrats, as a key example see George Wallace, Democrat, and 'Segregation forever' advocate. From the 40's on those racists moved to the Republican side, for example, see Strom Thurmond and the Dixiecrats.
There are other wings of the Republican party, but all successful Republican's from Nixon (and maybe earlier) on have received most of the racist vote.

I am losing, on several fronts, but here it's the word "racist" as applied to political parties and....well, I simply don't agree with you. I can understand how you can write the above, but that is a stereotype that I can't support based on my own observation, talking with people, and thinking about it.
Truth is, like Barry Bond when asked to go to Boston to play baseball his response was "no" and that there were "too many racists"! In the North!
Can't be so! Well, it applies to Democrats as well. Yeah, no doubt there are racists in the Repub party as well; but that is the nature of folks, and besides, I don't mind racists, as one is clear where they stand. Don't need haters, but racists are cool as long as they don't talk superiority based on genetics. Nothing wrong with pride. We have a different view of that term as applied to ALL folks, individually, that is.


Before the current Bush I could accept it as a toss up, with both sides accusing the other. The current Bush administration has introduced politics into science policy at a far far deeper level than any previous administration.

Got me there. I really don't follow that. Any time gov't gets into anything like that, I click off. Bush mentioned steroids at one state of the union address....what in tarnation did that have anything to do with state of the union? And then senate hearings and Barry and just a slew of crap that has NOTHING to do with......Science, same thing. Religion, same thing. If they would TRY to stick to the Constitution and what's in that.....should be busy enough to earn their money instead of the shell game they foist upon us!

[Lenny]

Dear Lenny,
I don't see the issue of Eltiism -- or the word itself, or the political meanings and uses it has, the way you are describe them.
I think it's fairly a straightforward matter to discuss the problem of elitism, without going trough the complex series of confusing definitions and contradictions that you lay out.
I don't believe that what I'm writing and posting has the kind of twisted, obtuse, unrecognized bias that you imply I have.
I don't believe that what I'm writing and posting has the kind of sinister malice that Period3 accuses me of.

Well, you see there we have a problem as you well described. Communication is based on definitions and as St Don has stated, those words have meaning. If we can't agree on meaning, then clumsiness arises. Sorry for being so clumsy. I thought I gave a base definition of "elitism" (The attitude that society should be governed by an elite group of individuals) and all I asked was YOUR idea of what that means as a Marxist & Evangelical. Easy does it. Didn't mean to burst a seam. I thought the point of this exchange WAS to get complex, but not verbose. Base definitions are easy, the complexity mandates verbosity, but not excessive, as if the other person "gets it" immediately. I often miss the mark myself, but others show patience. As P3 and his "sinister" issue, that is between you and...well, wait a minute....your perception of my intentions and using "twisted, obtuse, unrecognized bias" may be related to P3's "sinister" approach. There seems to be an underlying pattern here: you and your inferences towards us. I guess we'll never know utilizing this approach. And here I thought I was being straight forward! Well, in any case, forget it.


I'm simply urging all of us, including myself, to acknowledge that we are at risk of elitism. Here, I mean, by elitism: inaccurate and offensive beliefs, attitudes or conduct which treats others as inferior to ourselves, based on "higher" class status, education, speaking style, and in the issues we are discussing, northern and northeastern condescenscion toward southerners and midwesterners, and religious condescenscion toward devout, traditionalist believers.

I don't believe we "are at risk of elitism" here.
We are stinking elitists.
Met-the-enemy-and-they's-us kind of thingy.
Now what?


Frankly, I think that definition and usage was completely self-evident in all my posts, and I think your complex word-play about other meanings etc. was a tactical and rhetorical pretense. I think taht, even if you were serious about the semantic and politiical arguments you raised. A pretense, because you pretended you couldn't understand what I meant, and then claimed that my post was unclear or too contradictory to have any real value or sense. But I think it was perfectly clear, did have value and made good sense.

You see, PS, the problem is we ALL think our writing is clear until....
To be crude, as well as impossible to prove, I'll bet you don't think your gas smells as badly as another person's. For you it is bearable, but for another it may seem like it would gag a maggot. Does that make sense to you? Same with one's writing, as applicable in the above.


You take that posture of pretended confusion fairly often. To me, it comes across as a calculated maneuver that you see as ingenious and funny. To me, it also comes across that you tell yourself you're doing everyone a delicious, mind-expanding favor by posting these kinds of confusing contrarian arguments. But in the process, I think you derail other peoples' valuable attempts to communicate, in a disruptive way.

Well, you have found me out. I tend to be disruptive. True. But the clarification I seek is usually from the original poster. So if, for example, you say you are a Marxist Evangelical Christian, and I challenge that claiming it's impossible, does that mean I am being clever, confused, ingenious, or funny? I may be disruptive to you, but I may also be outraged due to my background, as you understand that both may exist simultaneously (my outrage as well as the disruption). Of course the "disruption" may be within you by my questions and statements, whereas another may see a similar exchange as "clarification" of their own personal views, a chance to figure out their issues via writing and communicating. In other words, some may find it a "good thing" to respond to clarify their own thoughts, while others find it disruptive to their own stated position.


So I won't try to untangle all the confusing responses you raised about my use of the word and concept "elitism". I hope some readers follow my reasoning and share my concerns. Some clearly do. Others can have discussions about how I'm actually the real elitist, or an unwitting agent of a Christo-fascist theocracy, or a self-righteous asshole, or whatever else they feel they need to vent. That seems like a defensive, confused misuse of time and energy to me. When I don't respond to some of the intense, reactive stuff some people post in response to my ideas, that will usually be the reason. If I've misjudged you in what I wrote above, I'm sorry. David

If you do not wish to answer my previous questions or untangle my poor writings to discuss "elitism" concepts, I can understand.
Are you a preacher some where?, like on Saturdays or Sundays some place in Sonoma on a semi or regular basis?
As a Christian, I must ask: are you in any way "self-righteous asshole"?
Also, you write that others may think this or that of you, do you care what others think to any great extension? And why? Are you trying to please somebody with putting your ideas and thoughts down on paper or this site? You write strange notions and you possibly could speak better or be more at ease in speaking. Just wondering. No biggie.

[Zeno Swijtink]

It is after one leaves the lab and tries to piece it together. Certainly school age folks should have ID brought to them in order to stimulate their arguing abilities if not clarification of what's in the skull full of mush. They are not scientists. Possibly ID comes at the very end, when all the "sciencey" parts, paradigms, and papers, issues, presentations, and conversations are exhausted at least with adults, eh?

Coming from a country where we are more relaxed about mixing State and Religion - ALL religious schools are funded by the State - and having myself gone to a Calvinist High School where the biology teacher who introduced us to evolutionary thinking gambled with his job, I am in favor of introducing discussions about ID "in the curriculum." My point was just to show the depth of the controversy.

But then I also like to see introduced in the curriculum - in the name of improving critical thinking - all the archeological and text-critical findings about the history and wanderings of what today is accepted by many as the Sacred text, the direct word of Him.

[Braggi]

... I am in favor of introducing discussions about ID "in the curriculum." My point was just to show the depth of the controversy. ...

I am also in favor of introducing ID; as long as it's in comparative religion. It certainly doesn't belong in any science class.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a15KgyXBX24

Thanks, Rich, that's a good one. Here's another:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbJ8xhJqKps

-Jeff

[Braggi]

Here's an article about our closest relatives in Spain:

https://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2008/06/27/spain-to-grant-some-human-rights-to-apes/

Spain’s parliament approved a measure Wednesday to extend some human rights to gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, and orangutans, becoming the first country to explicitly acknowledge the legal rights of nonhumans.

The parliament’s environmental committee approved a resolution that commits the country to the Declaration on Great Apes, which states that nonhuman apes are entitled to the rights of life, liberty, and protection from torture.

The declaration, developed in 1993 by a group of primatologists, ethicists, and psychologists known as the Great Ape Project, demands “the extension of the community of equals to include all great apes.” According to the declaration, apes may not be killed except under “strictly defined circumstances,” such as self-defense. They may not be imprisoned without due legal process, and they may not be subjected to the “deliberate infliction of severe pain,” even if doing so is said to benefit others.

Reuters reports that the resolution is expected to become law, and will likely take effect within one year. The news agency spells out what this means for Spain’s population of nonhuman apes.

Keeping apes for circuses, television commercials or filming will also be forbidden and breaking the new laws will become an offence under Spain’s penal code.

Keeping an estimated 315 apes in Spanish zoos will not be illegal, but supporters of the bill say conditions will need to improve drastically in 70 percent of establishments to comply with the new law.

The Times of London notes that the resolution could be the beginning of a trend toward granting similar rights to other nonhuman animals:

Spain’s conservative Popular Party also complained that the resolution sought to give animals the same rights as humans – something that the Socialist Government denies. Some critics questioned why Spain should afford legal protection from death or torture to great apes but not bulls. But Mr Pozas said that the vote would set a precedent, establishing legal rights for animals that could be extended to other species. “We are seeking to break the species barrier – we are just the point of the spear,” he said.

Spain’s resolution is regarded as a landmark move against “speciesism,” or human exeptionalism, but other countries have taken steps in recent years toward recognizing nonhuman apes as moral persons who possess an inherent worth and dignity.

In 2002, Germany’s parliament voted to add the phrase “and animals” to a clause in the country’s constitution requiring the state to uphold the dignity of humans. In 1992, Switzerland passed an amendment to its constitution that recognized animals as “beings,” and not “things.”

Last year, the parliament of Spain’s Balearic Islands endorsed the Declaration on Great Apes.

[Lenny]

Coming from a country where we are more relaxed about mixing State and Religion - ALL religious schools are funded by the State - and having myself gone to a Calvinist High School where the biology teacher who introduced us to evolutionary thinking gambled with his job, I am in favor of introducing discussions about ID "in the curriculum." My point was just to show the depth of the controversy. But then I also like to see introduced in the curriculum - in the name of improving critical thinking - all the archeological and text-critical findings about the history and wanderings of what today is accepted by many as the Sacred text, the direct word of Him.

Calvin School? Holland? No wonder I lose so many arguments with you!
From what I understand in reading & discussion, Calvin had The Most Perfect form of Christianity around! Prostitutes and all!
And you fit so well in America too!
As for the depth of controversy, broad issue there. So much of our media simply stirs the pot to get controversy, such as when folks come to a conclusion of matters, the media will resurrect past issues, misrepresent current matters, or simply not report.
I am not sure about your wish to have archeological and critical findings regarding history and current accepted texts of a Sacred nature. It really goes back and forth; for example Isaiah as written in the Dead Sea Scrolls turned out to be letter perfect from what is current, and that was deemed important since there is a 700 year separation between texts. Or the word "Ararat" means "mountain range", not one specific mountain. And the junk goes on and on, with new findings weekly. Often contradicting the issues of the preceding month! Is that what you mean? The city of Troy kind of thingy? I'll let the Discovery Channel plumb those.

[Lenny]

>Spain’s parliament approved a measure Wednesday to extend some human >rights to gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, and orangutans, becoming the first >country to explicitly acknowledge the legal rights of nonhumans.

So I gather Franco is dead?
See what happens when a good man is needed?

As for the circus, I am under the impressions that Europeans do not have many animal acts, or far fewer than we here. That's good. I recall taking my kids to a European type circus in Santa Rosa years ago. Mostly strong man stuff in teams, balancing acts, juggling, clowns, and other humans tricks. Most enjoyable. Maybe one elephant, don't recall. But my adult children still remember THAT circus best.

[Sylph]

Lenny wrote: "Your in-laws make me wonder about how they do answer the nature of the geologic time. Or the nature of God. I mean, is God a trickster, putting old stuff around to fool us? I doubt if they believe that. And I hope they don't believe Satan is doing that, as both would be a violation of that nature."

My brother in law, the periodontist, actually believes in Young Earth Creationism, much to my surprise. The only feeble argument he put forth for this was, 'well, I've heard there are some problems with dating the ice core samples'. In other words, because there may be some discrepancies with science, we can throw it all out! They think most physical features on earth were formed by The Flood. When I brought up the work on DNA in human body/head lice used to try and figure out when humans started wearing clothes (70,000 years ago, but it's pretty speculative), my dear, mild-mannered brother in law actually muttered, 'the Devil is influencing those scientists' (!). Then, I decided it was time to change the subject!

"And, BTW, evolution DOES give the best method of explaining our amazing world and when seasoned with a taste of ID, the flavor may be considered divine".
I think evolution is plenty spicy as it is...more fascinating every year with ongoing discoveries. ID arguments are interesting, too, like you say, something to discuss by the fire.

Oh, and your in-laws are right: taking the creator out of the social equation will lead to all manners of social evils."

Here is an argument that we evolved to be empathetic and 'moral' if you will. Theists don't have a monopoly on goodness and morality.

https://www.spreadrationality.com/blogs/kemal-eren/2008/morality-without-god

[Lenny]

Lenny wrote: "Your in-laws make me wonder about how they do answer the nature of the geologic time. Or the nature of God. I mean, is God a trickster, putting old stuff around to fool us? I doubt if they believe that. And I hope they don't believe Satan is doing that, as both would be a violation of that nature."

My brother in law, the periodontist, actually believes in Young Earth Creationism, much to my surprise. The only feeble argument he put forth for this was, 'well, I've heard there are some problems with dating the ice core samples'. In other words, because there may be some discrepancies with science, we can throw it all out! They think most physical features on earth were formed by The Flood. When I brought up the work on DNA in human body/head lice used to try and figure out when humans started wearing clothes (70,000 years ago, but it's pretty speculative), my dear, mild-mannered brother in law actually muttered, 'the Devil is influencing those scientists' (!). Then, I decided it was time to change the subject!

Well, not to be technical, but there are problems with ice core samples, just as there is with The Flood issues. Saw an amazing film about Mt St Helena and the aftermath years after the blow up. The government scientist (maybe that's why) concluded it would take a bazillion years to return the environment back to "normal". It took about 10 years or 15 years.
Many such very specific arguments, like head lice/human body (what IS that?) can be devilish. Rather try and lead him by asking questions to help him clarify his notions; probably won't turn the conversation off. But I hate it when folks retrieve into that "devil stuff" as well. Shuts down everything.


"And, BTW, evolution DOES give the best method of explaining our amazing world and when seasoned with a taste of ID, the flavor may be considered divine".

I think evolution is plenty spicy as it is...more fascinating every year with ongoing discoveries. ID arguments are interesting, too, like you say, something to discuss by the fire.

Personally, I got bored with evolution until ID turned up. It was dry for me after a time; I recall a 45 minute class on some minor aspect of the Krebs Cycle that "proved" evolution due to light fluctuation, the spectrum of light going in as oppose to it coming out of the organism during the process. Or maybe it was spring time and my thoughts were turning towards the girl sitting near me? I can't recall anymore. Anyway, it turned out to be one more detailed issue after another.


Oh, and your in-laws are right: taking the creator out of the social equation will lead to all manners of social evils."

Here is an argument that we evolved to be empathetic and 'moral' if you will. Theists don't have a monopoly on goodness and morality.

https://www.spreadrationality.com/blogs/kemal-eren/2008/morality-without-god

Your article was more fun than enlightening. Just about each sentence could be taken apart with as much excitement as the above Krebs Cycle lecture. The first obvious question: maybe this God-thing that does not exist is using evolution as the tool itself, thus negating the original position that the God-thing does not exist.
Their two premises:
1. Moral codes of conduct transcend cultural boundaries, implying that all humans share some aspects of morality.
2. There is no evidence for a supernatural creator that could have imposed these morals.

Because that writer claims these issues are irreconcilable, does not make it so.
There are codes of conduct, which may be called "morale", that transcend culture. For example is there a group of people that will abide a "traitor"? No, there is not. It is a "moral outrage" to have someone in your midst that will go to "the other side" and divulge "their secrets" to them. And the usual punishment? The ultimate for all cultures: physical banishment of one form or t'other. Has there ever been a country, tribe, or people that show honor (a moral virtue) to a warrior who runs away during battle? No, cowardice is not rewarded due to the innate sense of morality, and this is across all species of mankind (or not so "kind"). Yes, you may point to this or that instance, but such anecdotes only emphasize the obvious: there are objective "laws" which are considered "moral" and natural across all mankind. All sing, but there are a few anomalies that sing out of tune. Most all see colors, but a few are color blind.
The second premise is also up for grabs, but would take much longer than my time permits. Yes, there seems to be no evidence of a supernatural creator. Does that mean there is none, or just no evidence presented in a fashion that all must accept? Gets into "evidence" definition. Gets into "supernatural creator", that nature, and a whole host of waxy problems. But in the end it is based on "faith", which is "unseen". Some folks have it, and others not, again, like singing in key or not, seeing red/green, or not.
Never ending complications, eh? And thanks again for the cite.

[Sylph]

Thanks for your thoughtful response, Lenny.
Just to answer your question about the lice, for now.
Mark Stoneking, an anthropologist in Germany, got a note from his son's school, saying there was a head lice infestation. This got him thinking about lice and lead to a DNA study.
"Individual species of lice are intensely specialized, largely to avoid grooming and preening behaviors by creatures trying to get rid of them. Some bird lice, for example, live only on the heads of their feathered hosts, where nitpicking beaks cannot reach. Others live only inside animal quills or in other specialized spots.
Stoneking took advantage of a specialization that separates two species of human lice. Head lice stay on the head and glue their eggs to the shafts of hairs (with a cement that dries so hard and so fast that the female sometimes gets fatally stuck there by mistake). Body lice, by contrast, feed on hairless parts of the body and lay their eggs only in clothing, especially in protected areas such as seams.
By figuring out when body lice first appeared, the team reckoned it would get a good idea of when clothing arose. It's possible that clothing may have existed for some time before body lice, Stoneking said. But in general . . . when a new ecological niche becomes available, organisms move in very quickly."
So, maybe we were very hairy for while, and didn't need clothes? This is all fun to think about, not in any way 'proven', yet.
https://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/20/010.html

[PeriodThree]

You wrote that "The word 'elitist' in modern America is right wing hate speech."

That is not my perception or understanding.


The thing about hate speech is that the person using the hate speech, in this case you, doesn't get to determine what is or is not hate speech.

I consider your equating 'elitism' with 'setting up a theocracy' as being equally bad as, well, hate speech.

Why do you, the person who equates my preference for smart versus stupid people as being equivalent to trying to set up a freaking theocracy, get to determine how I receive your message?

You claim to be all about finding common ground, but when push comes to shove you don't accept that calling someone an elitist is hate speech.

Fine for you, but denying my reality is not finding common ground.

[Lenny]

Quote:
Peace Seeker wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=64012#post64012)
You wrote that "The word 'elitist' in modern America is right wing hate speech."

That is not my perception or understanding.


The thing about hate speech is that the person using the hate speech, in this case you, doesn't get to determine what is or is not hate speech.

As hate is a feeling, then we communicate feelings to what end?
What is the point of communication, in this instance?
While it may offend you, what was he trying to say? And if you think offense was the only point, then right on and rail, but what then is your point in this exchange? That your feelings were hurt? If he is a hater, then your feelings mean what to him?
I think the wrong path is being taken here.
You raise an interesting point about "who determines hate speech", but the real issue at hand slips away.


I consider your equating 'elitism' with 'setting up a theocracy' as being equally bad as, well, hate speech.
Why do you, the person who equates my preference for smart versus stupid people as being equivalent to trying to set up a freaking theocracy, get to determine how I receive your message?

You know he does not get to determine your experience, nor how you receive his message. But that is always the problem in communication: sender:message: receiver, all the while what the party THINKS the signal sent is accurate. But now I lost the thread!
You prefer to have smart people run things? Is that your wish?
Now I AM lost, so please don't make me go back and reread all this clap trap again!
Without weight nor judgment, is that not a type of "elitism"?
If so, then I am an elitist and don't mind being called so. I don't want dumb folks running all this (Insert million jokes here re: current condition).
Or is it that a theocracy would be run by dumb folks? Or anybody that has a theocratic or religious notion/approach automatically dumb?
Good point, and of late, much agreement around here.


You claim to be all about finding common ground, but when push comes to shove you don't accept that calling someone an elitist is hate speech. Fine for you, but denying my reality is not finding common ground.

DFN Elite: A group or class of persons enjoying superior intellectual or social or economic status.

As the above, what would be the opposite, and would one wish to be run by same?
So, what's the bluster and what's the message?

[Zeno Swijtink]

I thought this opinion piece gave a good summary of the importance to understand the theory of the evolution of life on earth. -- Zeno

****

GUEST COLUMNIST
Optimism in Evolution (https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/opinion/13judson.html)
By OLIVIA JUDSON
Published: August 12, 2008
LONDON

When the dog days of summer come to an end, one thing we can be sure of is that the school year that follows will see more fights over the teaching of evolution and whether intelligent design, or even Biblical accounts of creation, have a place in America’s science classrooms.

In these arguments, evolution is treated as an abstract subject that deals with the age of the earth or how fish first flopped onto land. It’s discussed as though it were an optional, quaint and largely irrelevant part of biology. And a common consequence of the arguments is that evolution gets dropped from the curriculum entirely.

This is a travesty.

It is also dangerous.

Evolution should be taught — indeed, it should be central to beginning biology classes — for at least three reasons.

First, it provides a powerful framework for investigating the world we live in. Without evolution, biology is merely a collection of disconnected facts, a set of descriptions. The astonishing variety of nature, from the tree shrew that guzzles vast quantities of alcohol every night to the lichens that grow in the Antarctic wastes, cannot be probed and understood. Add evolution — and it becomes possible to make inferences and predictions and (sometimes) to do experiments to test those predictions. All of a sudden patterns emerge everywhere, and apparently trivial details become interesting.

The second reason for teaching evolution is that the subject is immediately relevant here and now. The impact we are having on the planet is causing other organisms to evolve — and fast. And I’m not talking just about the obvious examples: widespread resistance to pesticides among insects; the evolution of drug resistance in the agents of disease, from malaria to tuberculosis; the possibility that, say, the virus that causes bird flu will evolve into a form that spreads easily from person to person. The impact we are having is much broader.

For instance, we are causing animals to evolve just by hunting them. The North Atlantic cod fishery has caused the evolution of cod that mature smaller and younger than they did 40 years ago. Fishing for grayling in Norwegian lakes has caused a similar pattern in these fish. Human trophy hunting for bighorn rams has caused the population to evolve into one of smaller-horn rams. (All of which, incidentally, is in line with evolutionary predictions.)

Conversely, hunting animals to extinction may cause evolution in their former prey species. Experiments on guppies have shown that, without predators, these fish evolve more brightly colored scales, mature later, bunch together in shoals less and lose their ability to suddenly swim away from something. Such changes can happen in fewer than five generations. If you then reintroduce some predators, the population typically goes extinct.

Thus, a failure to consider the evolution of other species may result in a failure of our efforts to preserve them. And, perhaps, to preserve ourselves from diseases, pests and food shortages. In short, evolution is far from being a remote and abstract subject. A failure to teach it may leave us unprepared for the challenges ahead.

The third reason to teach evolution is more philosophical. It concerns the development of an attitude toward evidence. In his book, “The Republican War on Science,” the journalist Chris Mooney argues persuasively that a contempt for scientific evidence — or indeed, evidence of any kind — has permeated the Bush administration’s policies, from climate change to sex education, from drilling for oil to the war in Iraq. A dismissal of evolution is an integral part of this general attitude.

Moreover, since the science classroom is where a contempt for evidence is often first encountered, it is also arguably where it first begins to be cultivated. A society where ideology is a substitute for evidence can go badly awry. (This is not to suggest that science is never distorted by the ideological left; it sometimes is, and the results are no better.)

But for me, the most important thing about studying evolution is something less tangible. It’s that the endeavor contains a profound optimism. It means that when we encounter something in nature that is complicated or mysterious, such as the flagellum of a bacteria or the light made by a firefly, we don’t have to shrug our shoulders in bewilderment.

Instead, we can ask how it got to be that way. And if at first it seems so complicated that the evolutionary steps are hard to work out, we have an invitation to imagine, to play, to experiment and explore. To my mind, this only enhances the wonder.

Olivia Judson, a contributing columnist for The Times, writes The Wild Side at nytimes.com/opinion.

[madison]

Evolution is but a novel notion. Is that what we teach our kids today? Novel notions? In my day it was facts and how to determine facts. My school didn't teach what it thoght might be true. It taught what was true. My school didn't teach evolution because there is nothing to teach just a novel notion.

[Braggi]

... My school didn't teach what it thoght might be true. It taught what was true. My school didn't teach evolution because there is nothing to teach just a novel notion.

Your school didn't teach very well. It did you no favors, that school.

I'm sorry for all that has cost you and for all it will cost those you influence.

-Jeff

[Lenny]

Oh, Z, you do love to stir the pot!
Got too much to do today, but happy to give a minute to this.
Poor writer could not have missed more in his three points.
1. Biology IS simply a compilation of facts in plain evolution. There is no "end" or teleological process to figure "out" or "towards", but simply random factoids and nothing could be more boring than to figure out chaos. The alternative would be to discover the "mind of order" which could be considered intelligent.
2. His second notion of "immediacy" is truly antithetical to education. One does not learn in a hurry, nor should education be taught as such. "Quick, quick, learn this because we are on fire" is an approach that should get a person dismissed from any school! School is slow motion, not taught from hysterics. And the hubris of the writer is truly amazing in his second point examples. He has determined the course of macro evolution?!?!? The guy is a writer, and while buggies, statistics, populations of quick breeding microorganisms, can be discussed in terms of adaptation, his application to large species in a short period is nothing, if not absurd.
3. His third point is what is a beaut, "Bush's fault" simply does not cut it.
There was, I believe a misprint as he wrote, "the science classroom is where a contempt for evidence is often first encountered" does not make sense. It is not "contempt" that is first encountered in a science class. Maybe he meant "content"? As that classroom is where young minds first encounter logic and application in the observable and familiar world. If the language is correct then his "contempt" is lost upon me. But I am sure he will find it to be Bush's fault.
While his optimism, born from the endeavor for teaching evolution is profound to him, it is clear to me that he stands alone or with few in company, and knows no medical students or chemists that follow their notion of Creator and that never shrug to the mysteries presented while pursuing their carriers.

[MsTerry]

I thought this opinion piece gave a good summary of the importance to understand the theory of the evolution of life on earth. -- Zeno


All I want to know is when Evolution can figure out that Women don't want hair on their legs!
I am tired of razorburn!!!

[madison]

My school didn't teach pretend history and why are you being such a jackass to me?

Your school didn't teach very well. It did you no favors, that school.

I'm sorry for all that has cost you and for all it will cost those you influence.

-Jeff

[Peace Seeker]

All I want to know is when Evolution can figure out that Women don't want hair on their legs!
I am tired of razorburn!!!

And I'd like a few words with whatever northern European immigrant primate ancestor traded away my natural rythm in exchange for intensified Germanic bombast.

Next epoch, please consult me!

[Lorrie]

All I want to know is when Evolution can figure out that Women don't want hair on their legs!
I am tired of razorburn!!!


Ms Terry get some Nare! No razor burn...

[Braggi]

Evolution is but a novel notion. Is that what we teach our kids today? Novel notions? In my day it was facts and how to determine facts. My school didn't teach what it thoght might be true. It taught what was true. My school didn't teach evolution because there is nothing to teach just a novel notion.


My school didn't teach pretend history and why are you being such a jackass to me?

Madison, I'm not being a jackass. I'm truly sorry. I'm sorry that your school didn't teach you the difference between science and religion. Clearly you are a believer (and I don't necessarily mean in the churchianity sense.) You were cheated.

If your school had taught you even the basics of evolution you would know that the "theory" of evolution is the farthest thing from a novel notion just as the theory of gravity is based on the fact that you will fall down if not supported and the cell theory is based on the fact that our bodies are made of cells. These are theories based on facts, not novel notions. They are truth and in fact, they are the whole truth, because they are always open to new information, change and growth, as opposed to belief, which is a closed book and the tool of those who wish to manipulate closed minds. It is belief that is the lie (no doubt, from Hell) because belief is made of blinders to learning.

Evolution isn't based on pretend history, it's based on true and real history. It's based on facts. It is a living science and is the true spiritual tradition in my mind. Evolution is not based on blind beliefs but on growing knowledge and wisdom. The relatively new science of genetics has proved that all living things on this Earth are interrelated. We are, in fact, one big family. Isn't that better than a belief system that teaches we are all separate? I think so.

-Jeff

[madison]

Your a rude jackass that ASSumes too much about people you don't know. I'm sorry I even responded to you.


Madison, I'm not being a jackass. I'm truly sorry. I'm sorry that your school didn't teach you the difference between science and religion. Clearly you are a believer (and I don't necessarily mean in the churchianity sense.) You were cheated.

If your school had taught you even the basics of evolution you would know that the "theory" of evolution is the farthest thing from a novel notion just as the theory of gravity is based on the fact that you will fall down if not supported and the cell theory is based on the fact that our bodies are made of cells. These are theories based on facts, not novel notions. They are truth and in fact, they are the whole truth, because they are always open to new information, change and growth, as opposed to belief, which is a closed book and the tool of those who wish to manipulate closed minds. It is belief that is the lie (no doubt, from Hell) because belief is made of blinders to learning.

Evolution isn't based on pretend history, it's based on true and real history. It's based on facts. It is a living science and is the true spiritual tradition in my mind. Evolution is not based on blind beliefs but on growing knowledge and wisdom. The relatively new science of genetics has proved that all living things on this Earth are interrelated. We are, in fact, one big family. Isn't that better than a belief system that teaches we are all separate? I think so.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

Your a rude jackass that ASSumes too much about people you don't know. I'm sorry I even responded to you.

Perhaps you could clarify and correct my erroneous assumptions.

Perhaps you could even do so without name calling.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

...
1. Biology IS simply a compilation of facts in plain evolution. There is no "end" or teleological process to figure "out" or "towards", but simply random factoids and nothing could be more boring than to figure out chaos. The alternative would be to discover the "mind of order" which could be considered intelligent.
...

Oh Lenny! You do take things out of context on purpose to make us all crazy, don't you?

Biology ISN'T simply a compilation of facts in "plain" evolution. The rest of your statement is equally just plain wrong. You can do better than this.


...
2. His second notion of "immediacy" is truly antithetical to education. One does not learn in a hurry, nor should education be taught as such. "Quick, quick, learn this because we are on fire" is an approach that should get a person dismissed from any school! School is slow motion, not taught from hysterics. And the hubris of the writer is truly amazing in his second point examples. He has determined the course of macro evolution?!?!? The guy is a writer, and while buggies, statistics, populations of quick breeding microorganisms, can be discussed in terms of adaptation, his application to large species in a short period is nothing, if not absurd. ...

This is your notion of immediacy, Lenny, not the author's. Go back and read the article. It's pretty well explained. You just didn't get it.

If you think education is about slow motion, when is the right time to teach a kid how to balance a checkbook? ... or drive a car? There are plenty of times when teaching is about immediate need.


...
3. His third point is what is a beaut, "Bush's fault" simply does not cut it.
There was, I believe a misprint as he wrote, "the science classroom is where a contempt for evidence is often first encountered" does not make sense. ...

Are you unaware of the Bush gang's assault on science both in politics and in the schools? Sure you're not that out of the loop. Maybe you are. Get a copy of that book mentioned in the article. At least read some reviews of it.

If a science "teacher" has a non-scientific attitude about his topic he may very well be teaching contempt. Anti-evolutionists top the list in teaching contempt for the scientific method. Sadly, I think anti-evolutionists miss a grand opportunity to share the greatest example of applied spirituality when they deny the truths of evolution. With an open mind evolution fits quite neatly with the teachings of any spiritual tradition.


... But I am sure he will find it to be Bush's fault.
...

Lenny, everything bad is Bush's fault. How could you have missed that? :wink:


...
While his optimism, born from the endeavor for teaching evolution is profound to him, it is clear to me that he stands alone or with few in company, and knows no medical students or chemists that follow their notion of Creator and that never shrug to the mysteries presented while pursuing their carriers.

Well, that's weird, but I've come to expect such statements from you.

I know quite a few (former) medical students and a few chemists to boot. Don't know a single one who believes evolution isn't in full swing to this day.

-Jeff

[Lenny]

And I'd like a few words with whatever northern European immigrant primate ancestor traded away my natural rythm in exchange for intensified Germanic bombast. Next epoch, please consult me!

You can't sway with oak trees all around bumping into ya.
Besides, in the snow you can only shiver in small spaces. :wink:

[PeriodThree]

It doesn't seem like 'being a jackass' to point out that the school which didn't teach you evolution did you no favors.

There are a few exceptions of mostly deluded but otherwise smart people, but basically the break down is pretty damned clear: stupid people believe in creationism. Non-stupid people believe in evolution.

I am sorry to be 'elitist' but denying evolution is intellectually weak.



My school didn't teach pretend history and why are you being such a jackass to me?

[Lenny]

If your school had taught you even the basics of evolution you would know that the "theory" of evolution is the farthest thing from a novel notion just as the theory of gravity is based on the fact that you will fall down if not supported and the cell theory is based on the fact that our bodies are made of cells. These are theories based on facts, not novel notions. They are truth and in fact, they are the whole truth, because they are always open to new information, change and growth, as opposed to belief, which is a closed book and the tool of those who wish to manipulate closed minds. It is belief that is the lie (no doubt, from Hell) because belief is made of blinders to learning.

So, prior to the gravitational theory....things fell up? Or with cell theory, we were just protoplasms?
These are explanations from observation and testing, and approximations to (or is it "of") "reality". They are not reality. All to often we speak as if......
Which brings us back to the "connect the dots" or even the more contemporary 3D pictures my kids would give me headaches over. Never did see anything in those....
IOW, it's all how one views.....but it is not "reality".


Evolution isn't based on pretend history, it's based on true and real history. It's based on facts. It is a living science and is the true spiritual tradition in my mind. Evolution is not based on blind beliefs but on growing knowledge and wisdom. The relatively new science of genetics has proved that all living things on this Earth are interrelated. We are, in fact, one big family. Isn't that better than a belief system that teaches we are all separate? I think so.-Jeff

I like your first sentence...."true and real history"...gadz, we can't even agree that evolution is true.......:wink:
And then you go and get all poetical on me! Your notion of "spiritual tradition" scares the living bejesus out of me, as there are many that feel the same way. And from that comes chaos as far as I can understand it....which is the current world view and, again in my opinion, why we have so many problems of a personal nature and social maladies. Folks around here (US) are hooking up to chaos, rather than what the unity that still permeates many fine cultures.
Oh, and I find chemestry teaching we are all related, via carbon based matters. I find genetics to young and wild to come to some of the conclusions widely and easily disseminated, or maybe it is the way it's disseminated? But then those ID guys make that same claim that we are all related, as they write of some "proto-type" of beings; very Platonic (I like that) in that there was "The Dog" from which all dogs flow, etc. Intriguing, or more so for me AS A THEORY than wild goo in a sea of slop when lightening struck.

[Braggi]

So, prior to the gravitational theory....things fell up? ...
IOW, it's all how one views.....but it is not "reality".
...

Only in your world, Lenny.

Theories help us understand, explain and teach about reality. But you know that. You're just jerking our collective chains here.


... I like your first sentence...."true and real history"... ...

There's a lot of history that isn't true. I wanted to make a point in opposition to the notion of "pretend" history. It's the winners that write history and a lot of the time the winners are liars. Evolution doesn't depend on lies and liars nor about books written by humans. Evolution is real. It's happening all around us whether we realize it or not.


... And then you go and get all poetical on me! Your notion of "spiritual tradition" scares the living bejesus out of me, as there are many that feel the same way. And from that comes chaos as far as I can understand it....

But I'm a deeply religions man, Lenny. Why does that scare you? And why does that equate to chaos in your mind? Where does your fear come from?


... Folks around here (US) are hooking up to chaos, rather than what the unity that still permeates many fine cultures. ...

Please explain further.


... Oh, and I find chemestry teaching we are all related, via carbon based matters. I find genetics to young and wild to come to some of the conclusions widely and easily disseminated, or maybe it is the way it's disseminated? ...

Yeah, I also think some of the conclusions are getting ahead of themselves, however, like evolution, the picture is getting clearer all the time. The gaps are getting filled. The way it's disseminated? Yeah, our media is into sensation and that often without a clear factual base, but that's what we've bought with our "free" market (that's very costly and very manipulated). Buyer beware. Do your own research before making big behavioral changes based on a study.


... But then those ID guys make that same claim that we are all related, as they write of some "proto-type" of beings; very Platonic (I like that) in that there was "The Dog" from which all dogs flow, etc. Intriguing, or more so for me AS A THEORY than wild goo in a sea of slop when lightening struck.

But the dog came from the sea of slop and so did we. No lightening needed. It happened on the bottom of the sea near volcanic vents where it's still happening to this day. We have some pretty bizarre ancestors.

I heard about "the cat," or at least, the species of cat from which all house cats have subsequently been bred (note, I didn't say evolved). Didn't know about "the dog" though. I thought dog genetics were more complicated and came down from various wild dog ancestors.

The notion of "Eve" is a curious one though. The idea that all of us are descendants of a single woman? Really?

A single woman and a lot of male apes? :hmmm:

That's not what they meant! :wink:

-Jeff

[Lenny]

Lenny wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=66606#post66606)
1. Biology IS simply a compilation of facts in plain evolution. There is no "end" or teleological process to figure "out" or "towards", but simply random factoids and nothing could be more boring than to figure out chaos. The alternative would be to discover the "mind of order" which could be considered intelligent.
Oh Lenny! You do take things out of context on purpose to make us all crazy, don't you?
Biology ISN'T simply a compilation of facts in "plain" evolution. The rest of your statement is equally just plain wrong. You can do better than this.

Jeff, I could write LONGER, but time didn't permit then and I still got haven't gone to therapy for my back.
I suppose we disagree, as I still maintain that biology is simply a bunch of facts with evolution stringing them together to create a unity of these facts. I mean you go and observe bees (I still haven't fed them!) and come to a "what if" and try it. If it works or doesn't, there is no "answer" in your experiment. Upon reflection of what you've observed, what you theorized, then tested, you come to conclusions. Isn't that about it? That is science. NONE of which has anything to do with what we are discussing here. ID/Evolution or something else comes AFTER or BEFORE all that, no? Help me out here as that is how I see it.
If one goes into it with the notion that there is a "spiritual" basis, whether it is evolution or creation, then those are the fetters we choose, and not the conclusion that we reach using the scientific method!


Lenny wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=66606#post66606) ...
2. His second notion of "immediacy" is truly antithetical to education. One does not learn in a hurry, nor should education be taught as such. "Quick, quick, learn this because we are on fire" is an approach that should get a person dismissed from any school! School is slow motion, not taught from hysterics. And the hubris of the writer is truly amazing in his second point examples. He has determined the course of macro evolution?!?!? The guy is a writer, and while buggies, statistics, populations of quick breeding microorganisms, can be discussed in terms of adaptation, his application to large species in a short period is nothing, if not absurd. ...
This is your notion of immediacy, Lenny, not the author's. Go back and read the article. It's pretty well explained. You just didn't get it.
If you think education is about slow motion, when is the right time to teach a kid how to balance a checkbook? ... or drive a car? There are plenty of times when teaching is about immediate need.

Eh, Jeff? We don't teach kids on how to drive a car by putting them into it on Day 1. In teaching how to balance a checkbook, the kids must first understand arithmetic, basic money matters like saving, buying, selling, etc.
If I may quote the opening statement, "The second reason for teaching evolution is that the subject is immediately relevant here and now." which leads me to believe this writer, like so many of his ilk, wants IMMEDIATE changes, without question, based on their belief system which others have "disproved", if not come to different conclusions after reviewing the same information and material. I find that hysterical if not disingenuous.
Again, we don't agree, almost. A poor teacher may teach out of "immediate needs" but students do not learn in that manner. Promulgating fear, and that is what I see this second point doing, does not help learning, except in a battlefield, but not in academics. To many casualties in both.


Lenny wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=66606#post66606) ...
3. His third point is what is a beaut, "Bush's fault" simply does not cut it.
There was, I believe a misprint as he wrote, "the science classroom is where a contempt for evidence is often first encountered" does not make sense. ...
Are you unaware of the Bush gang's assault on science both in politics and in the schools? Sure you're not that out of the loop. Maybe you are. Get a copy of that book mentioned in the article. At least read some reviews of it.
If a science "teacher" has a non-scientific attitude about his topic he may very well be teaching contempt. Anti-evolutionists top the list in teaching contempt for the scientific method. Sadly, I think anti-evolutionists miss a grand opportunity to share the greatest example of applied spirituality when they deny the truths of evolution. With an open mind evolution fits quite neatly with the teachings of any spiritual tradition.

As usual, Jeff, you cover so much in so few words, I don't know how to recover from the wide shotgun blast you have hit me with in the above! You are assuming much more than I can deal with in this medium.


Lenny, everything bad is Bush's fault. How could you have missed that? :wink:

Jeff, I have come to state that myself to everyone about every little thing as well! I think you may have me becoming a believer!:wink:


Lenny wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=66606#post66606) ...
While his optimism, born from the endeavor for teaching evolution is profound to him, it is clear to me that he stands alone or with few in company, and knows no medical students or chemists that follow their notion of Creator and that never shrug to the mysteries presented while pursuing their carriers.

Well, that's weird, but I've come to expect such statements from you.
I know quite a few (former) medical students and a few chemists to boot. Don't know a single one who believes evolution isn't in full swing to this day. -Jeff

Well, Jeff, all I can say is that you need to widen your circle of friends. Besides, talking to anybody about religion is really tough these days, don't you agree? Everybody wants to scream "sides" and throw epithets at "the other", much like dodge ball as a child. Especially those in the scientific community as they've the most to lose for speaking up and out. But try looking up, for example, Loma Linda University if you want to find a whole passel full of folks that not only believe in the Big Muffin notioin but are on the cutting edge of scientific research and breakthroughs. I don't like their very fundamentalist religion or beliefs, but that is one public example. Got tangled up with them a while back and found them to be favorably impressive. There are others, outside that circle, that have similar notions, but see what happens when the do "come out", kind of like that Genome Research guy. His community handed him his head after serving it up to the public.
No, Jeff, it ain't easy being green.

[Lorrie]

Boy you guys let the cat outta the bag! How do any of you know? And if you do know how come there is a disagreement? :dunno:

I didn't want to get into it, I just wanted to mention that this is one of those conversations that shouldn't be entered into lightly and we are all watching.... Goes along with Politics, religion, paranormal...:blahblah: ...proselytizing

Are each of you trying to convince the others that YOU are right?
:lol2:Ha ha ha :lol2:ah aha :lol2:ha ha ha :xtrmlaugh:

This could go on forever...

Let's get back to the basics...:mj::havinabeer:
Just kidding!!:curtsey:

[MsTerry]

Ms Terry get some Nare! No razor burn...

Nare?
Naaaaaaaaaaahhh.
I like life on the razor's edge

[Zeno Swijtink]

Evolution is but a novel notion. Is that what we teach our kids today? Novel notions? In my day it was facts and how to determine facts. My school didn't teach what it thoght might be true. It taught what was true. My school didn't teach evolution because there is nothing to teach just a novel notion.

What do you mean by saying evolution is a novel notion? Evolution as a theory has been discussed as early as the late 18th century. Darwin published his On the Origin of Species in 1859, long before the development of Quantum Mechanics or Relativity Theory. Are you suggesting these physical theories should not be taught because they are too novel?

I also urge you to see what it means to "teach" something in a broader light.

Students need to have a understanding what the Evolution is, both as a theory and as a fact. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact) At the end of a test there is no question: "And do you accept that this all is TRUE??" Basic to learning is developing a deep understanding what all these ideas are and becoming able to apply them in new context.

[madison]

Theories are novel notions not facts. If schools are teaching novel notions now I pity the children. I cant believe we're paying teachers to teach opinions Opinions are a dime a dozen. What a waste of teaching time.


What do you mean by saying evolution is a novel notion? Evolution as a theory has been discussed as early as the late 18th century. Darwin published his On the Origin of Species in 1859, long before the development of Quantum Mechanics or Relativity Theory. Are you suggesting these physical theories should not be taught because they are too novel?

I also urge you to see what it means to "teach" something in a broader light.

Students need to have a understanding what the Evolution is, both as a theory and as a fact. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact) At the end of a test there is no question: "And do you accept that this all is TRUE??" Basic to learning is developing a deep understanding what all these ideas are and becoming able to apply them in new context.

[Zeno Swijtink]

Theories are novel notions not facts. If schools are teaching novel notions now I pity the children. I cant believe we're paying teachers to teach opinions Opinions are a dime a dozen. What a waste of teaching time.

I am curious about your use of the word "novel." My dictionary gives "new or unusual in an interesting way," for the use of novel as an adjective.

Are you opposed to the teaching of all theory in middle and high school? If not and if all theories are "novel notions," what makes some theories teachable and some not?

[Zeno Swijtink]

I am curious about your use of the word "novel." My dictionary gives "new or unusual in an interesting way," for the use of novel as an adjective.

Are you opposed to the teaching of all theory in middle and high school? If not and if all theories are "novel notions," what makes some theories teachable and some not?

Welcome back, Singing Pastor Don "thewholetruth," to WaccoBB. I wondered where did I hear this odd phrase "novel notion" before? A search of this list showed it to be one of your signature expressions.

A man may change his screen name, but he can't change his thinking.

Wonder though whether your need to reappear on this list counts as an "addiction" in your books??

[Braggi]

Nare?
Naaaaaaaaaaahhh.
I like life on the razor's edge

Nads!

https://www.depilatorys.com/


-Jeff

[meherc]

Someone in this discussion stated that people who do not believe in evolution are stupid. Period. Because evolution is a fact and that's that. That's just what my teenaged son says and I cringe each time I hear it. And it is such a teenaged thing to say.
Thanks for pointing out that there is a broader value to learning -to understanding different world views without just dismissing anyone you don't agree with.




What do you mean by saying evolution is a novel notion? Evolution as a theory has been discussed as early as the late 18th century. Darwin published his On the Origin of Species in 1859, long before the development of Quantum Mechanics or Relativity Theory. Are you suggesting these physical theories should not be taught because they are too novel?

I also urge you to see what it means to "teach" something in a broader light.

Students need to have a understanding what the Evolution is, both as a theory and as a fact. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact) At the end of a test there is no question: "And do you accept that this all is TRUE??" Basic to learning is developing a deep understanding what all these ideas are and becoming able to apply them in new context.

[MsTerry]

What if it is one of his wifes?
He does have a following


Welcome back, Singing Pastor Don "thewholetruth," to WaccoBB. I wondered where did I hear this odd phrase "novel notion" before? A search of this list showed it to be one of your signature expressions.

A man may change his screen name, but he can't change his thinking.

Wonder though whether your need to reappear on this list counts as an "addiction" in your books??

[MsTerry]

Do you know how many and which toxic chemicals they use for hair removal products?


Nads!

https://www.depilatorys.com/


-Jeff

[phooph]

May I reiterate - gravity is only a theory, therefore, we must avoid any mention of gravity in our school curricula. We may need to throw out all of Newtonian physics for that matter.



Theories are novel notions not facts. If schools are teaching novel notions now I pity the children. I cant believe we're paying teachers to teach opinions Opinions are a dime a dozen. What a waste of teaching time.

[PeriodThree]

No, no one said what you assert. I wrote

"There are a few exceptions of mostly deluded but otherwise smart people, but basically the break down is pretty damned clear: stupid people believe in creationism. Non-stupid people believe in evolution."

This doesn't mean evolution is a fact, and it doesn't even mean evolution is true. Though it almost certainly is true.

But if you look around the people who are 'stupid' are more likely to believe in creationism. People who are not 'stupid' are more likely to believe in evolution.

My sympathies to your son for having a father who was abused by his parents and community into adopting a fundamentally stupid world view.

Creationism in schools is simple child abuse.



Someone in this discussion stated that people who do not believe in evolution are stupid. Period. Because evolution is a fact and that's that. That's just what my teenaged son says and I cringe each time I hear it. And it is such a teenaged thing to say.
Thanks for pointing out that there is a broader value to learning -to understanding different world views without just dismissing anyone you don't agree with.

[Zeno Swijtink]

No, no one said what you assert. I wrote

"There are a few exceptions of mostly deluded but otherwise smart people, but basically the break down is pretty damned clear: stupid people believe in creationism. Non-stupid people believe in evolution."


There is no difference between saying "Non-stupid people believe in evolution" and "people who do not believe in evolution are stupid". They are logically equivalent statements. It's called "contraposition".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition

[PeriodThree]

Too many of the posts on this thread have been deleted, by their authors or someone else, for my last post to have the context I want it to have.

If you are following the thread you got all of the emails, and so you have the context, if not, well, sorry :-)

Most of what is wrong in America (and perhaps in the world at large) comes from the same cultural source which leads to a belief in Creationism and Intelligent Design.

Most of what is good in America comes from people and institutions with strong Christian roots (and from many active believers), so as attractive as it is to take the easy target we can't simply blame Christianity.

I am troubled by the question, but at heart it seems to stem from the combination of the natural tendency and desire of people to believe in something larger than themselves, and to belong, coupled with our ability to rationalize away all conflicting evidence.

Some ways of thinking, like science with its focus on falsifiable statements, capitalism with the near absolute demands of short term profit, and the US form of government with the currently stressed system of checks and balances, have built in limiters which tend _over time_ to dampen the excesses of the true believer.

Maybe all systems have these limiters, and it is just a matter of how strong the controls are and how well they are implemented.

Maybe. But otoh, the controls of Evangelical Christianity seem to be so weak as to be irrelevant. The University of California was just allowed to exclude some courses from Christian schools which, for example, use a science textbook which starts out saying that when there is a conflict between faith and science that science is wrong.

[Lenny]

May I reiterate - gravity is only a theory, therefore, we must avoid any mention of gravity in our school curricula. We may need to throw out all of Newtonian physics for that matter.

Later on we do set aside gravitational theory since we really don't know.
We simply "call" it one of the "four fundamental forces".
By the way, just what IS mass?
And may I reiterate as well, theory is NOT reality.

[Lenny]

No, no one said what you assert. I wrote

"There are a few exceptions of mostly deluded but otherwise smart people, but basically the break down is pretty damned clear: stupid people believe in creationism. Non-stupid people believe in evolution."

This doesn't mean evolution is a fact, and it doesn't even mean evolution is true. Though it almost certainly is true.

But if you look around the people who are 'stupid' are more likely to believe in creationism. People who are not 'stupid' are more likely to believe in evolution.
Creationism in schools is simple child abuse.

So....you find that science and theories are based on democracy? So.....when more people thought the world was flat....?
And your notion of "fact", like evolution means that it could be a "theory"?
And here I always thought playing lose with words meant you were a musician or poet!

[Lenny]

Most of what is wrong in America (and perhaps in the world at large) comes from the same cultural source which leads to a belief in Creationism and Intelligent Design.

Curious. Can you describe or ascribe this cultural source or the aspects of it?


Most of what is good in America comes from people and institutions with strong Christian roots (and from many active believers), so as attractive as it is to take the easy target we can't simply blame Christianity.

Many do blame Christianity, as if an idea can kill and ruin. People wish to blame such, but in the end it is people, always. And under the name of "...".


I am troubled by the question, but at heart it seems to stem from the combination of the natural tendency and desire of people to believe in something larger than themselves, and to belong, coupled with our ability to rationalize away all conflicting evidence.

Yes, we agree. It is a troubling situation and does hurt the heart. I wonder about your language, "to believe in something larger" as I can see a rock and "believe" it is larger than myself, though I normally don't "experience" that rock with all my senses (the notion is both addressed in Buddhism as well as certain Christian approaches to that rock).
I find we wish to "believe" in something OUTSIDE ourselves, both as individuals and collectively. A "force" of sorts seems to make us happier.
And we are all "experts" at rationalizing away conflicting evidence, as well as just about everything we don't like. Amazing creatures!


Some ways of thinking, like science with its focus on falsifiable statements, capitalism with the near absolute demands of short term profit, and the US form of government with the currently stressed system of checks and balances, have built in limiters which tend _over time_ to dampen the excesses of the true believer. Maybe all systems have these limiters, and it is just a matter of how strong the controls are and how well they are implemented.

I am not crazy about how you characterize some of the above. I mean science stands to prove that it has false statements; it asks to all to prove the statement before you is "wrong" or how much in error it may be with any set of givens. That is the purpose of that discipline.
As far as capitalism, well, without the constraints that OTHER disciplines may put on folks, like religion, it can and has become a short sighted beast. If there is nothing OUTSIDE the capitalist other than their own self interest, then we have what many call "capitalist" but that is too limiting a definition (possibly for a political/economic agenda?)



Maybe. But otoh, the controls of Evangelical Christianity seem to be so weak as to be irrelevant. The University of California was just allowed to exclude some courses from Christian schools which, for example, use a science textbook which starts out saying that when there is a conflict between faith and science that science is wrong.

Whoa! Interesting. Didn't realize it reached that far. Of course, if that identified conflict is in the introduction of the book only, and then the book goes and teaches "straight" science, then UC is wrong in excluding that class of kids. Of course, while my kids were in Analy I looked at their science texts, and some of those should have been thrown out by UC. That same old picture of phylogenetic recapitalization was shown. Wrong as it is, it was still passed off as "fact".
Anyway, thanks for your post, as I've wanted to get some of this junk off my chest.

[Braggi]

Do you know how many and which toxic chemicals they use for hair removal products?

Did you go to the link and read?

-Jeff

[Braggi]

Later on we do set aside gravitational theory since we really don't know. ...

We know gravity exists and that it works. We just don't know how to explain it very well. There is do doubt about the theory of gravity. It is true. Gravity is real.

We know how to explain evolution very well, see evidence of it in every biological discipline, are supported by the fossil record, and we see adaptation happen in a few generations. There is no doubt about the fact of evolution. Questions still need to be answered and gaps still need to be filled. That is happening.


... By the way, just what IS mass? ...

That's the stuff between most people's ears. Oh, wait ... that's mush. :wink:


... And may I reiterate as well, theory is NOT reality.

So, dear Philosopher Lenny, what is reality?

-Jeff

[Braggi]

So....you find that science and theories are based on democracy? So.....when more people thought the world was flat....?

Bad analogy, Lenny. "People" have known the world is round ... basically all along. The notion that most people in Europe at the time of Columbus thought the world is flat is probably in error or the Dark Ages really did dumb down the population as much as the Church intended.

The Greeks knew the Earth was round. The Egyptians knew it. The Mayans and the Aztecs knew it. The Chinese knew it. The Arabs knew it. Anyone who ever climbed a mountain knew it. Who exactly didn't know it?

Oh, Thomas Friedman. That's right.

-Jeff

PS. Just visited the Musée de l'Institut du Monde Arabe (Museum of the Institute of the Arab World) in Paris last week. I snapped an (illicit) picture of an "astrolabe" which is a device for calculating movements of the stars.

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4511&stc=1&d=1218824404

I wish I would have noted the date, but you can read more about the history of the device here: https://www.astrolabes.org/history.htm

[Braggi]

... As far as capitalism, well, without the constraints that OTHER disciplines may put on folks, like religion, it can and has become a short sighted beast. If there is nothing OUTSIDE the capitalist other than their own self interest, then we have what many call "capitalist" but that is too limiting a definition ...

I think "capitalist" and "capitalism" are too often confused in our times with the more accurate terms "corporatist" and "corporatism;" aka, "fascism."

Capitalism is about the relationships between and among sources, suppliers, producers, distributors, retailers and consumers. "Money" fits in there somewhere. It demands a long term view in order to remain viable. Well designed capitalism is sustainable and can function well in a democratic republic.

-Jeff

[PeriodThree]

Hi Lenny,



Curious. Can you describe or ascribe this cultural source or the aspects of it?


Later in my post I try :-)




Many do blame Christianity, as if an idea can kill and ruin. People wish to blame such, but in the end it is people, always. And under the name of "...".


I sort of agree that in the end it is people, but people operate under different sets of rules or laws or assumptions or cultures or religions...





Yes, we agree. It is a troubling situation and does hurt the heart. I wonder about your language, "to believe in something larger" as I can see a rock and "believe" it is larger than myself, though I normally don't "experience" that rock with all my senses (the notion is both addressed in Buddhism as well as certain Christian approaches to that rock).
I find we wish to "believe" in something OUTSIDE ourselves, both as individuals and collectively. A "force" of sorts seems to make us happier.
And we are all "experts" at rationalizing away conflicting evidence, as well as just about everything we don't like. Amazing creatures!


I was using 'something larger' as a metaphor, I do believe in trees and rocks and elephants larger than myself, but yet they do nothing to slake my spiritual thirst :-)

Maybe 'something outside' works. Certainly I have a desire to associate myself with ideas and people and movements and spirituality which is 'bigger' than I am.




I am not crazy about how you characterize some of the above.


My examples were of systems which mostly work at limiting the damage done by 'true believers' or even crowds of true believers.

My post (below) has gotten too long - sorry! The point is not so much to defend science, capitalism, and the US Constitution, as it is to look at the similarities between the ideas of the falsifiable in science, the profit motive in capitalism, and the system of checks and balances in the US Constitution.

Each of these serves the similar function of limiting the power of the True Believer.

Obviously the systems are not perfect, as we have plenty of abuses in all three systems!



I mean science stands to prove that it has false statements; it asks to all to prove the statement before you is "wrong" or how much in error it may be with any set of givens. That is the purpose of that discipline.


With respect, I think you are confusing a tool of science, the falsifiable hypothesis, with the purpose of science.




As far as capitalism, well, without the constraints that OTHER disciplines may put on folks, like religion, it can and has become a short sighted beast. If there is nothing OUTSIDE the capitalist other than their own self interest, then we have what many call "capitalist" but that is too limiting a definition (possibly for a political/economic agenda?)



I am coming to the conclusion that the short sighted focus of American
Capitalism, and the intentionally limited focus on self interest, are major reasons why American Capitalism is so very very good at generating capital.

(I use the word 'capital' in an extremely broad, possibly even degenerate sense, in which just about everything we care about is 'capital.' For example, I consider the formula for Oral Rehydration Solution as well as the Australian Aborigines Songlines to both be capital)

Whether we, as people, should be generating capital, or specific forms of capital, at the expense of other values like health, leisure, and the survival of our planet is vital but is not (and should not be) the prime focus of the capitalist.

Zeno is going to dismiss me as a simple Libertarian, or perhaps comment on my focus on the Capitalist Divine, but this really seems to me to be how things work within our current systems.

What we judgmentally label as 'short sighted' can more charitably be called focusing on results. In effect the capitalist is running a series of scientific experiments to answer the question 'how can I maximize profit?'

The shorter the time frame the more experiments can be run, and the more experiments that you run the more chance you have of getting a positive outcome.

The beauty of capitalism as a system is that you can get solid and easy to understand answers. If you made a profit than you made the right choices (or you were just lucky). If you did not make a profit than you did not make the right choices (or you were simply unlucky).

There are 'true believers' but mostly if they do not make a profit they are ignored. Or at least, the system is designed to limit their influence.

The criticism that the Capitalist is focused only on greed or self interest has always confused me. We invented the technology of capitalism (or more likely, it emerged or evolved :-) in order to maximize the production of 'capital.'






Whoa! Interesting. Didn't realize it reached that far. Of course, if that identified conflict is in the introduction of the book only, and then the book goes and teaches "straight" science, then UC is wrong in excluding that class of kids. Of course, while my kids were in Analy I looked at their science texts, and some of those should have been thrown out by UC. That same old picture of phylogenetic recapitalization was shown. Wrong as it is, it was still passed off as "fact".
Anyway, thanks for your post, as I've wanted to get some of this junk off my chest.

Here is a link to the story on the textbooks:
https://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/13/BAQT129NMG.DTL&hw=uc+textbook&sn=001&sc=1000