…and this is a 
Ridicule works!
Category: Creationism
Posted on: December 22, 2007 9:20 AM, by PZ Myers
The threat of an eruption of creationism in Polk County, Florida, is dying down. The school board hasn't changed, it still has a number of confident creationists on it, but they're all going to keep their religious beliefs at home and in church, and in fact, they have a "great eagerness simply to return to the day-to-day work of running a school district with 90,000 students." It's great news all around.
What got them to confine their interest to doing their job? As the article explains, a lot of factors contributed. The county wants tech sector jobs and expansion of a University of South Florida campus, and they got biting comments from the people behind those economically important initiatives. They had the Dover trial waved in their faces, and saw the threat of expensive litigation and even more expensive defeat. And they got ridiculed on a local and national level—bloggers and magazines mocked them, they got mail from proponents of the flying spaghetti monster, their quaintly ridiculous religious views got publicized on the front page of local newspapers.
Creationists hold some very stupid ideas, but most of them aren't stupid people. They know deep-down that their religious beliefs are indefensible on a plane that demands evidence and results, and while they aren't going to give up those beliefs, they'd rather be spared the embarrassment of having to lay them out and explain them in scientific terms. A good loud campaign of public ridicule can be just the thing to convince them to put their heads down and buckle into the secular work they're supposed to be doing.
Politics
Comments
Unfortunately, I don't think Texas will easily succumb to similar forms of ridicule.
Posted by: Dan | December 22, 2007 9:44 AM
Interesting sentiments PZ; despite the amount of time I spend reading about the religion verus rationality debate, I can't help but think that although the steps may be small and infrequent, they ultimately add up to an inevitable progression to a secular [read; free from superstition] human society. In other words, rationality wins... eventually. We can only hope, eh?
Posted by: Stingray | December 22, 2007 9:53 AM
While ridicule may work, is there a way to institutionalize something? What I'm thinking of is a movement of faculty to get our universities to refuse to accept science credits, particularly biology, that exclude evolution?
Institutional power is useful.
Posted by: MAJeff | December 22, 2007 9:55 AM
Don't know if anyone posted this, so apologies if they have, but it made me giggle:
http://www.re-discovery.org/per_table.gif
Posted by: Scrofulum | December 22, 2007 10:00 AM
I love this statement
""They've made us the laughingstock of the world," said Margaret Lofton, a school board member who supports intelligent design. She dismissed the e-mail as ridiculous and insulting."
No Ms Lofton you have made youself a laughing stock
with your mindless religious rantings.
Posted by: Jonathan Smith | December 22, 2007 10:10 AM
Re the periodic table and other sciency parody from Scrofulum's comment #4, I am looking forward to the day when the Re-Discovery Institute replaces "Kansas" with "Texas" on their material...
Posted by: Albatrossity | December 22, 2007 10:14 AM
It's refreshing to see Darwinists using persuasion (even if it's ridicule) to convince school boards to censor criticism of Darwinism. No ACLU, no threats of litigation and bankruptcy.
What if the people of a district are ultimately persuaded to allow open discussion of Darwin's theory, including criticisms? No doubt, Darwinists will then use judicial censorship to silence those who ask questions in schools. It's unconstitutional to ask questions critical of Darwin's theory, you know. I've just had some dificulty finding the clause in the constituition that applies...
Posted by: Tom | December 22, 2007 10:18 AM
For the love of GOD, Tom, please stop. you're making me laugh so hard I'm in pain.
Posted by: MAJeff | December 22, 2007 10:21 AM
This is similar to claiming that it's "unconstitutional" to pray or read the Bible anymore, since the government can't use tax funds to promote a religion in the public schools and force everyone to stop and watch. Learn the difference between what individuals are allowed to do in public, and what the state, on behalf of the public, can do.
By the way, the proper venue for asking "questions critical of Darwin's theory" is the scientific community. Come up a testable theory with viable results and see all those mean bullying tactics fall away. They weren't tactics -- they were rules.
Posted by: Sastra, OM | December 22, 2007 10:24 AM
Tom, the lawsuit was already in the air, see the fora of the Ledger, Elsberry had already offered to be a lead witness for the plaintiffs....
Posted by: kim | December 22, 2007 10:31 AM
Would someone from here please go over to the article, register, and set Maxfl1 and jameswpope (I think that was the name) straight. Even as aggravated as I am with their nonsensical understanding of evolution, etc., I'm just too burned out on arguing with fundies to work up the energy for it this morning.
Posted by: ChemBob | December 22, 2007 10:32 AM
And of course "Darwin's theory" is enshrined as immutable dogma and has never been questioned in that totalitarian scientific community, so I must be just imagining the existence of neutralists, neomutationists, and punk-eek proponents...
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | December 22, 2007 10:35 AM
#7:
Clearly you can't find yourself posting comments here without having waded through a host of quality information about biology and evolution (the two are inseparable), dutifully ignored.
I just don't understand how you can post such drivel so confidently. You are an adult, not an omniscient teenager, correct?
I consider myself a very knowledgeable person. I'm so crammed full of information about all manner of things, that it's screamingly obvious how much I don't know.
Don't you get even an inkling of that realization about yourself? Do you really think all those people spending years in accredited study have it wrong, while a few religious tracts and missives put you in the know?
Posted by: Thanny | December 22, 2007 10:38 AM
#7
I am all for discussion of alternatives, when your years of biological research finally find one, please let us all know ok?
Posted by: thadd | December 22, 2007 10:40 AM
You haven't addressed my point. Why is it unconstitutional to question a theory (scientific or otherwise) in a public school?
If the religious motivation for the question is the issue, why then wouldn't it be unconstitutional for a teacher to question any government policy in front of students, if it could be shown that the question arose from the religious convictions of the teacher?
Would it have been unconstitutional for a teacher who, because of her religious convictions opposed segregation in the South, to question Jim Crow laws?
I'm not addressing the point as to whether it would be wise or scientifically appropriate to question Darwin's theory, but whether it would be constitutional.
It's ironic how folks who tout their 'reason' and 'freethought' censor with such vigor.
Posted by: Mark | December 22, 2007 10:52 AM
Now, all we need is the people in St Johns County ( St Augustine) and Hillsborough County ( Tampa/ St Pete ) to realize that ID just wont work.
Posted by: firemancarl | December 22, 2007 10:53 AM
Re: "Now, all we need is the people in St Johns County ( St Augustine) and Hillsborough County ( Tampa/ St Pete ) to realize that ID just wont work."
Fine. Convince them. Don't censor them.
Posted by: Mark | December 22, 2007 10:55 AM
You know, this may also shed some light on why it's often so damn difficult to get a more liberal theist to lay out and explain -- clearly and coherently -- just what they mean by the term "God."
Posted by: Sastra, OM | December 22, 2007 10:56 AM
You're confused as usual Mark. What is unconstitutional is trying to insinuate religious indoctrination into the public schools. Sadly for the creationist movement it did a rather poor job of covering its tracks when it morphed into "ID" in the hope of flying under the legal radar. A Republican, Christian federal judge in Pennsylvania was neither fooled nor amused by their tactics, as someone may possibly have told you.
Also you might try reading my previous comment and doing a little online research into the terms I used. That might enlighten you as to the amount of actual scientific debate and questioning that goes on (namely, a lot), as well as to the fact that Darwin has been dead for a long time and his books, while monuments of the history of science, are obsolete.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | December 22, 2007 11:02 AM
You haven't addressed my point.
Which point? Or, are you Tom? Oh goody, sockpuppetry as well.
Posted by: MAJeff | December 22, 2007 11:03 AM
#7:
No, I think most of the persuasion/ridicule came from people who understand modern evolution with all of the advances it's made in the last 150 years, not just the biographers of the man who discovered it.
It's a good thing those Dembskians/Beheites/Johnsonians/Wellsians/Meyerists in Florida don't feel like being the next laughingstock in an ill-fated Discovery Institute test case.
Posted by: Epistaxis | December 22, 2007 11:05 AM
"You haven't addressed my point. Why is it unconstitutional to question a theory (scientific or otherwise) in a public school?
If the religious motivation for the question is the issue, why then wouldn't it be unconstitutional for a teacher to question any government policy in front of students, if it could be shown that the question arose from the religious convictions of the teacher?
Would it have been unconstitutional for a teacher who, because of her religious convictions opposed segregation in the South, to question Jim Crow laws?
I'm not addressing the point as to whether it would be wise or scientifically appropriate to question Darwin's theory, but whether it would be constitutional.
It's ironic how folks who tout their 'reason' and 'freethought' censor with such vigor."
You obviously have no understanding of the interpretation of seperation of church and state taken by the supreme court.
If you do somthing that shows support for a religion or religious doctrine, that is in violation. This Jim Crow law example is a poor one, since it is not dirrect support of a religion.
Your argument also forgets that Creationism/ID is not an alternative for evolution, nor is it a scientific theory. It doesn't work, so it is not a valid alternative to present even if one were going to allow for different explanations
Posted by: thadd | December 22, 2007 11:20 AM
Re: "What is unconstitutional is trying to insinuate religious indoctrination into the public schools. "
The First Amendment says nothing about religious indoctination. It reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of."
Does mention in a public school of the Declaration of Independence ("Endowed by our Creator...") violate the Establishment Clause? How about Lincoln's Second Inaugural ("The Almighty has His purposes...)and his quote from the Gospels (Transgressions must come, but woe...) violate the Establishment clause?
If not, why then does criticism of Darwin's theory violate it?
Posted by: Mark | December 22, 2007 11:24 AM
How far is Mark going to move the goalposts?
It's no longer teaching a religious theory (as was the case in Dover and the what was proposed by the board members), but teaching "criticism of Darwinism" that he's framed the problem as. Not a terribly intellectually honest person.
Posted by: MAJeff | December 22, 2007 11:31 AM
Aaaagggghhhh!!! As someone who usually posts under the name 'Tom', I wish to disassociate myself with the 'Tom' in comment #7. I will use a better handle in future - don't want to get banned by PZ for trolling.
Posted by: Tom (McCann) | December 22, 2007 11:32 AM
I see we can add "constitutional law expert" to Mark's long list of "qualifications".
Unfortunately, a long line of judges have disagreed with him.
Umm, idiot, criticism of "Darwin's theory" goes on all the time. It comes from biologists, not from ignorant, dishonest religious apologists like the ID crowd (you can't "criticize" what you don't even understand.) The latter merely insinuate the idiotic (and unconstitutional) fallacy "we don't know everything yet, therefore goddidit".
Of course, you're quite incapable of outlining "Darwin's theory" and explaining how and why many modern approaches to evolutionary biology differ from it significantly. Modern evolutionary theories are in large part concerned with the fate in populations over time of genes, i.e. of entities about whose existence Darwin was quite unaware.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | December 22, 2007 11:38 AM
MAJeff- he's simply parroting the most recent DI party line / strategy.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | December 22, 2007 11:39 AM
#15 (MarkTom):
It's unconstitutional to take away time that could be spent educating kids on the scientific consensus underlying all of biology and replace it with religious indoctrination, which the courts have ruled creationism/ID to be. If you want your kids to learn alternatives to science, nobody is threatening to close down your local church or take away your Bible. If you want to challenge the scientific paradigms yourself, you're welcome to get a Ph.D. in biology and publish a couple dozen peer-reviewed papers like everyone else.
Evolution isn't a government policy, but I'll address your argument anyway. If a physics teacher wants to "teach the controversy" about string theory, it might actually be very beneficial for students to hear the scientific arguments for both sides. Likewise, back when it was a controversy, the distinction between gradualism and punctuated equilibrium could have made good education. Two problems with creationism are (1) there isn't a scientific controversy with scientific arguments on both sides, and (2) the objections to the science are religiously sectarian in nature, which means public schools are rightly prohibited from teaching them.
If the only way she could present abolitionism to her students was to teach them her Methodist or Quaker beliefs, yes, that's obviously unconstitutional. Likewise, it would have been unconstitutional for her to cite Leviticus 25:39-46, 1 Peter 2:18, and Titus 2:9-10 as the reasons why slavery is a just and worthy institution. On the other hand, if she discussed the works of those who argued for abolition on moral, rather than theological, grounds, such as Ernestine Rose and Harriet Martineau, that wouldn't be an unconstitutional use of school time for religious indoctrination.
Yes, that would be a devastating criticism if we were talking about censorship. Fortunately, no one is proposing to have the NSA redact your copy of Darwin's Black Box, or monitor your pastor's sermons to make sure he only delivers the approved theology, or delete content from your blog and remove it from Google searches. That would be unconstitutional, foolish, and evil.
Posted by: Epistaxis | December 22, 2007 11:42 AM
Mark, so you would be in favour of also teaching in health class that blood transfusions are a matter of controversy? Presumably as long as one didn't actually say "Jehovah's Witnesses", that would be OK, since you'd just be teaching the controversy, right? And it would be appropriate to mention that there is controversy about whether poisonous vipers can be handled without harm, since as long as you don't mention the religions that believe that, you're just teaching the controversy, right? And in language arts class it would be appropriate to say that there is controversy about language learning, and as long as you don't specifically mention charismatics speaking in tongues, you'd just be teaching the controversy, right?
And if you wanted to talk about the age of the universe in science class, if you said that some people thought it was 155 trillion years old, that would be OK as long as you didn't mention Hinduism, right? You'd just be teaching the controversy (and surely if you are going to include views against the mainstream scientific thought, it would only be fair to include vedic cosmology as well as Biblical, no?). And in health class presumably you'd want to mention the value that some people see in taking bear gall bladder -- just teaching the controversy, right? In social studies, presumably you'd want to mention that some people think the arrangement of the stars at the time of their birth influences their lives -- just teaching the controversy, right?
Surely, if there are criticisms of any aspect of knowledge, no matter how unusual or unlikely, we should teach it, right? (I guess we'll just need to extend the school year...)
Posted by: Tulse | December 22, 2007 11:56 AM
Why is it unconstitutional to question a theory (scientific or otherwise) in a public school?
If the religious motivation for the question is the issue, why then wouldn't it be unconstitutional for a teacher to question any government policy in front of students, if it could be shown that the question arose from the religious convictions of the teacher?
If you are honestly wondering why, there are resources out there that can answer your question. I would recommend you go here and read the posts (starting at the bottom and working your way up). Better than wasting our time here.
Posted by: Citizen Z | December 22, 2007 12:19 PM
Funny MarkTom, no one here in Florida censored them. They school board folks finally relaized that teaching any religious dogma in a public school system is vorboten. I am no longer suprised that ID/YECist like yourself continue to change the name of the point your trying to make regardless of how many times it has been shot out of the water.
You simply cannot teach something in a science class that doesn't even mesaure up to the term pseudo science. I suppose you would be unwilling to allow for all forms of creation to be taught in school. You and your ilk simply favor the xtian version where god did it. It's hard to make a scientific statement that starts and end with "God did it."
Just remember, people use to think that the planets were held in orbit by angels.
Face it, science will always trump religion and the longer the human races thrives, the longer science will debunk any god of the gaps arguments.
Posted by: firemancarl | December 22, 2007 12:21 PM
Steve LaBonne:
I disagree.
Darwin's Origin of Species:
1. is free
2. is widely available
3. is easily understood
4. proves, to laypeople, that macroevolution happened
What other books fit that description?
Posted by: David Ratnasabapathy | December 22, 2007 12:23 PM
My favorite part was "No doubt, Darwinists will then use judicial censorship to silence those who ask questions in schools."
That's right, all they want to do is ask questions just like scientists do, because they're curious people just like scientists are! ROTFLMFAO!!
(We just want to question evolution because we're curious...ah, priceless.)
Posted by: RamblinDude | December 22, 2007 12:40 PM
MarkTom, the science of biology has advanced since Darwin. Your arguments have not. Why are you still using 1859 arguments in 2007, almost 2008? Do try to keep up.
Posted by: Mena | December 22, 2007 12:46 PM
Teaching something in a classroom is the same as Congress passing a bill establishing a state religion? This is silliness used to promote Athesim, which, by several Federal Court decisions is legally a religion.
This thread indicates exactly who is smug, and uses ridicule rather than logic.
Posted by: Stan | December 22, 2007 12:49 PM
Stan, like the rest of 'em, so cute when he tries to think.
Posted by: MAJeff | December 22, 2007 12:51 PM
Now it's about promoting atheism. ROTFLMFAO AGAIN!!! I gotta go.
Posted by: RamblinDude | December 22, 2007 12:56 PM
For creationists it is not enough that they are stupid. They must ensure that others are just as stupid as they themselves are.
They want to go into public school science classes and proclaim "Let's all be stupid." What's not to ridicule about that?!
Posted by: shrimplate | December 22, 2007 12:58 PM
Stan's tryin' to think, but nuttin happens.
Posted by: waldteufel | December 22, 2007 1:01 PM
Are not Florida and Texas places where a huge -- I repeat, huge -- constituency exists that supports secular education? Doesn't the oil industry care about geology done, and therefore taught, well? Aren't there lots of educated parents (at many places along the religious spectrum) keenly aware of the value of having their kids receive the fruits of the best thinking of the day? I don't easily accept the idea that, in Texas specifically, there isn't a numeric majority among the business people, geologists, doctors, engineers, computer scientists, science teachers and so on, oriented towards evidence-based science.
So it seems to me that the real big news here is that these well-paid and theoretically very influential folks haven't the confidence or social glue or courage to slap down the education board, and get that hack chairman tossed out.
Maybe instead of doing childish internet battle with creationists, and babbling about constitutions, there could be more adult political discourse -- the kind where people use their real names -- in which members of the aforesaid educated class pick up the phone to their representatives, the media, university presidents and so on and ask "what are you doing to prevent my state from becoming a laughing stock and a backwater?"
Posted by: Neil Schipper | December 22, 2007 1:01 PM
That isn't what you cultists want to do. You want to sneak your dumb mythological lies into our kids science classes. And yes, it is blatantly illegal.
Sounds like you hate living in a free and open scientifically advanced society. Life can be a bitch sometimes. Fortunately, several theocratic hellholes have openings. I recommend Afghanistan or Somalia. You will have to change Jehovah to Allah and demote Jesus to a prophet. But these mental gymnastics are nothing to someone who can pretend a 13.7 billion year old universe is 6,000 years old.
Posted by: raven | December 22, 2007 1:02 PM
Did you read the linked article, Neil? What you called for is exactly what happened in Polk County. (And this was clearly alluded to in PZ's post.)
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | December 22, 2007 1:06 PM
Steve, I didn't read it, but I did the get the drift, and obviously I'm delighted. I'm responding more to what pharyngulists seem to think is a worthwhile use of their life force.
Posted by: Neil Schipper | December 22, 2007 1:18 PM
Who says they don't? Over and over again, I say that we need multi-pronged efforts...so what do you add with "childish internet battle" that disparages one line of attack?
And please, complaining about internet anonymity is so tired. Pseudonymous discourse has a long and respectable history.
"Life force"??!?
I also find people who want to dictate what people should do with their every waking moment tiresome. I hope your every moment is productive and fruitful...but what the heck are you doing wasting your life force commenting on a blog?
Posted by: PZ Myers | December 22, 2007 1:29 PM
Stan says,
"This is silliness used to promote Athesim, which, by several Federal Court decisions is legally a religion."
You need to prove this Stan. No need to cite Rush Limpdick or Bill O'Pervert or Glen Beckerhead. They are paid liars.
Dig a little deeper for the info if you can find it at all.
Good luck, and please try thinking for yourself if at all possible.
Posted by: Rick T. | December 22, 2007 1:48 PM
I find that the "childish internet battles" help prepare me for what are often even more simplistic battles in what's sometimes called 'real life.' When you keep dealing with common arguments and watch how others deal with them, they become familiar. You eventually learn what works, and what doesn't.
The internet may be a rowdy, rude free-for-all, but on the whole it's less stressful than face to face encounters. Gain knowledge, poise, and serenity -- or vent steam, bile, and invective -- in an place where it's all verbal, and all safe, and the hope is that a little of it will rub off when dealing with the media and the government -- or maybe just Aunt Edna and the guy who works in the next cubicle.
Posted by: Sastra, OM | December 22, 2007 1:53 PM
Neil, I agree that public discourse is a real solution for showing the difference between science and religious pseudoscience. However, I want to point out that from my own experience that industry still works just fine with a certain percentage of technically trained people that are otherwise blind to science.
I lost a life-long friend when he converted to a radical form of Christianity - a friend who is employed to lay out oil derricks via CAD. His belief that oil was created a mere 6,000 years ago by God, and that there is plenty to last until Armageddon (which will happen any time now...) is no hindrance to his ability to follow the instructions of engineers and geologists. Why the dichotomy doesn't make his head explode evades me.
In my job as an electrical engineer, I see this sort of thing all too often. (Everyone here knows just how many engineers are so sure that God is the ultimate engineer.)
Yes, there are many in industry who recognize that good science is necessary for industry - but they also realize that we have to use the technical competence that is available - even when that technical competence is attached to someone who believes that goddidit.
Posted by: Calladus | December 22, 2007 1:58 PM
Stan, what would god ever do without you to protect him?
Posted by: Mena | December 22, 2007 2:06 PM
I hope PZ's defensiveness does not divert attention from my central idea: Bickering with YEC/ID'ers by pseudonymous non-specialists is a form of entertainment; trying to cajole influential people is politics. I see a lot of chit-chat on this site that suggests a lot of people don't quite get that.
On my prior comment, just after I clicked "post", I realized I should have said "most pharyngulists" rather than "pharyngulists"; I wasn't trying to excessively inflame. Also, I hope it's clear I wasn't taking a dig at the article, but at the focus of much of the discussion about the article.
Posted by: Neil Schipper | December 22, 2007 2:07 PM
Stan, I disagree that anonymous discourse is merely entertainment. And I'd like to point out that there are a lot of science supporters and organizations who are openly opposing this religious foolishness.
A lot of us who work with trusted pseudonyms, or under full anonymity, also work with or support these open organizations too. As was suggested, we're not just playing around on the Internet - we're sharpening our arguments and getting them ready for prime time, in front legislators, educators, and even the press.
Posted by: Calladus | December 22, 2007 2:15 PM
I'm just playing around, we don't have as many problems with creationists in the north east.
Plus, mocking I.D. and creationists is fun... and completely appropriate.
Posted by: Steve_C | December 22, 2007 2:19 PM
Re: "Most of you are focusing on the word censor (and thereby allowing your buttons to be pushed a bit too easily). Why not dwell a moment on the word convince?"
Neil makes a good point. Obviously I disagree with you about some (but not all) of Darwin's theory, but my beef isn't with that. In fact, if I had my way, I'd include more time for evolution in schools, and I don't support teaching creationism or intelligent design. I support teaching and questioning Darwin's theory, rigorously, in schools, and engaging students to really think about what he said and about what evolutionary biologists say today.
What is the evidence that living things arose entirely without design? How good is that evidence? How has and can that theory be tested?
Students are smart enough to understand when they're being indoctrinated. When federal judges censor any 'disparagement' of Darwin's theory (The Dover judge's term), people know that what is going on is indoctrination, not objective discussion of the issue. Placing 'science' on the side of censorship will do far more harm to science in the long run than a few questions about Darwin's theory in a classroom.
And, by the way, if the evidence is so good for Darwinism, why are you so afraid of an open discussion in schools? People with the facts on their side don't need to censor their oppponents. They welcome the unfettered exchange of ideas. Why not show school kids what fools those ID guys are, by exposing their ideas and refuting them, in the classroom?
To the public (and not a few scientists), you look like a bunch of guys trying to insulate a very tenuous theory from scrutiny.
Posted by: Mark | December 22, 2007 2:24 PM
Neil: "I hope PZ's defensiveness does not divert attention from my central idea: Bickering with YEC/ID'ers by pseudonymous non-specialists is a form of entertainment; trying to cajole influential people is politics. I see a lot of chit-chat on this site that suggests a lot of people don't quite get that."
Cute rhetorical tricks. PZ's response is dismissed as "defensiveness," and criticism of creationists is just "bickering" and "chit-chat." And people who don't agree with your view just "don't quite get" it.
Thanks so much for your substantive contribution.
Oh, and as to "pseudonymous non-specialists": who do you think should be allowed to express an opinion here? Also, since you're so fond of openness and credentials, I'm sure you'll post your address, employer, and educational credentials for us to examine. Thanks.
Posted by: jdb | December 22, 2007 2:29 PM
On comment #4: I need some help here. As a retired chemist I'm lmao over the depiction of the periodic chart of the elements. And then it dawned on me, is this Discovery Institute serious? Guess I live a sheltered life here in San Francisco, as it is incomprehensible to me that someone actually believes this nonsense.
Posted by: SF Atheist | December 22, 2007 2:32 PM
Mark: "In fact, if I had my way, I'd include more time for evolution in schools, and I don't support teaching creationism or intelligent design."
Sure you don't. I totally believe you.
Posted by: jdb | December 22, 2007 2:32 PM
Mark, you should worry more that people will find out about your anti-Darwin criticism than that they'll be prevented from finding out about it. Stupid people with no argument embrace censorship for a reason. It's in our interest to make sure the world knows everything about what your people are really saying.
Posted by: junk science | December 22, 2007 2:33 PM
Oh come on, you guys know this. Well maybe not. Here ya go:
KAUFMAN v MCCAUGHTRY
U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh District Circuit Court,
Chief Judge: Crabb
Circuit Judges: Bauer, Wood, Williams
Document 04-1914; Aug 19,2005.
Welsh v. United States,
398 U.S. 333, 340 (1970);
United States v. Seeger,
380 U.S. 163, 184-88 (1965);
Torcaso v. Watkins,
367 U.S. 488, 495 & n.11 (1961);
Malnak v. Yogi, 592 F.2d
197, 200-15 (3d Cir. 1979) (Adams, J., concurring);
Theriault v. Silber, 547 F.2d 1279, 1281 (5th Cir. 1977) (per curiam;
Thomas v. Review Bd.,
450 U.S. 707, 714 (1981);
Lindell v. McCallum,
352 F.3d 1107, 1110 (7th Cir. 2003).
Look 'em up guys. Just because you WANT to believe something is not an excuse for not knowing this stuff.
Posted by: Stan | December 22, 2007 2:39 PM
Mark said:
What is the evidence that living things arose entirely without design? How good is that evidence? How has and can that theory be tested?
and all we are asking him and/or someone from the DI to answer is this:
What is the evidence that living things arose entirely with design? How good is that evidence? How has and can that theory be tested?
Why do these people always seem to be wearing several layers of irony?
To the public (and not a few scientists), you look like a bunch of guys trying to insulate a very tenuous theory from scrutiny.
I couldn't have said it better myself, although I would have used "untestable hypothesis" instead of "theory".
Posted by: Mena | December 22, 2007 2:39 PM
mark, why you are lying so much ?
Posted by: T_U_T | December 22, 2007 2:42 PM
"Defensiveness"? There you go again.
Your central idea is all wrong. Relying on politicians and academics is an elitist mistake. What we need to do is enlist and inform everyone into the fight, and this internet "chit-chat" is precisely what does that. The way we get politicians on our side is to show grassroots support, and the people who disparage the hoi-polloi are the disastrous and largely clueless gomers who have gotten this country into this situation.
As for that whine about pseudonyms -- you cannot imagine how irritating and repulsive it is. The people you are demeaning are using pseudonyms...but the have websites, they have email addresses, they have been a consistent presence, and they have reputations. You have none of those, yet you seem to feel you've got some superiority merely because maybe you are using your real name. To which I have to say...who the hell is Neil Schipper? Mena, Calladus, RamblinDude, Sastra, firemancarl, all these people with funny names here have far more credibility than you do because they have a history of presenting ideas.
All I know about you is that you don't get it.
Posted by: PZ Myers | December 22, 2007 2:42 PM
cute wittle stanie.
What's your point again?
Oh yeah, your head.
Posted by: MAJeff | December 22, 2007 2:43 PM
Thanks for the support but I post under my real, albeit funny, name...
Posted by: Mena | December 22, 2007 2:49 PM
junk science:
"Mark, you should worry more that people will find out about your anti-Darwin criticism than that they'll be prevented from finding out about it. Stupid people with no argument embrace censorship for a reason. It's in our interest to make sure the world knows everything about what your people are really saying."
I have no fear of open discussion of the ID/Darwin debate, in schools or elsewhere. That's why ID advocates support open debate in schools.
You know as well as I do that the reason the supporters of Darwin's theory go to federal court to censor criticism in public schools is that if school districts were allowed decide without federal judicial censorship, Darwin's theory that all life arose without evidence of design would almost immediately come under intense scrutiny in schools, and would be discredited in many if not most districts in the country in short order.
The reason that you take the enormous political risk of supporting censorship (and it's a real Achilles' heel for your side)is that the alternative would be rapid nationwide repudiation of the dogmatic materialistic aspects of your theory.
It would be like Glastnost. Open the door a crack- allow a little freedom- and the whole rotten edifice collapses. You need censorship.
Posted by: Mark | December 22, 2007 2:49 PM
(1)"Stan, like the rest of 'em, so cute when he tries to think."
(2)"Stan's tryin' to think, but nuttin happens."
This sort of sophomore trash talk is what seems to pass for rational discourse around here. When you guys get out of Junior High School, let's talk. I assume that you don't even know the difference between the process of empiricism, and the philosophical idealism that is known as Naturalism.
Do you want to talk or throw spit wads?
Posted by: Stan Stephens | December 22, 2007 2:52 PM
mark lies again :
Or. If this is not a lie, then, please, tell us what exactly your objections to (sic)darwinism exactly are.
Posted by: T_U_T | December 22, 2007 2:56 PM
Yeah, but Mena...you don't use your last name. Maybe you aren't pseudonymous, but you're too damned informal for a serious discussion.
Posted by: PZ Myers | December 22, 2007 2:58 PM
Mark, to normal people, you look like a psychotic religious killer about to go on a shooting rampage at a day care center for preschoolers somewhere. Ignore the voices in your head and take your medication. Please.
Gee, it is sort of fun to make wild accusations without much proof on the internet. Mark is just a troll killing time.
Posted by: raven | December 22, 2007 3:02 PM
Re; #63
You're confusing mob-rule with informed debate. However, far from censoring (has anyone at the DI been locked away, killed, prevented from going about their odious business?) the pro-science lobby has used the rule of law to reinforce the existing rules on church/state separation from what I can see.
As for your claim that "rapid nationwide repudiation of the dogmatic materialistic aspects of your theory" would occur I beg to differ; I would categorise the likely changes as dogmatic enforcement of ignorance about scientific knowledge.
Your paragraph about what would happen in schools if they were given the chance to criticise is ludicrous; high school pupils are in no position to criticize scientific ideas they have precious little knowledge of. I would be quite in favour of supposedly educated scientists attempting to kick the shit out of their peers in science fora (wanna suggest that to the DI?) but hey, hang on, that's what already happens :)
Posted by: AllanW | December 22, 2007 3:02 PM
Re: "If this is not a lie, then, please, tell us what exactly your objections to (sic)darwinism exactly are."
The Darwinian hypothesis that all complexity of living things came about without design is not supported by evidence. There is no evidence that a code (genetic code) can arise de-novo in nature without a mind causing it.
That some biological variation is the result of chance (undesigned) mutations is reasonable, but the hypothesis that all biological structure came about without design is not supported by evidence, and there is strong evidence against it (irreducible complexity).
Posted by: Mark | December 22, 2007 3:03 PM
and there is strong evidence against it (irreducible complexity).
Like the bacterial flagellum and the eye?
Posted by: MAJeff | December 22, 2007 3:06 PM
Mark: "and there is strong evidence against it (irreducible complexity)."
But you don't support the teaching of Intelligent Design, of course....
Posted by: jdb | December 22, 2007 3:10 PM
Actually, I wonder why I'm suggesting that you guys give up on censorship. It won't last forever--- there's a big backlash building, and a few appointments to the Supreme Court will do away with this ridiculous distortionof Establishment Clause jurisprudence.
To the general public, one of the strongest arguments ID guys have is that you are afraid to tolerate dissent in the classroom. I'm assuming that you know that, and you support censorship anyway. The reason, I presume, is that you have no choice. Open questioning of Darwinism in schools would be a catastrophe for your theory. For you, advocacy of censorship is the lesser of two evils.
Posted by: Mark | December 22, 2007 3:12 PM
Re; #69.
Hahahahahahaha! Forgive me but as was mentioned on another thread ridicule is my only response at this point. I'm sure PZ and a host of others can flood this thread with links to demonstrate exactly where you are just plain wrong but I'll content myself with wiping my eyes, my keyboard, screen and desk of the tea I just spurted out. Back in awhile .....
Posted by: AllanW | December 22, 2007 3:12 PM
You know as well as I do that the reason the supporters of Darwin's theory go to federal court to censor criticism in public schools is that if school districts were allowed decide without federal judicial censorship, Darwin's theory that all life arose without evidence of design would almost immediately come under intense scrutiny in schools, and would be discredited in many if not most districts in the country in short order.
So far as I know, that's never happened.
What does happen when people insert their narrow sectarian view as if it were science is that students and parents who object get called "atheists" and ostracized (c.f. Humes' "Monkey Girl"), receive threatening phone calls, or even get physical retaliation. The antievolution folks have a huge talent for projection, which is about all I can think of to explain their complete inversion of reality when it comes to willingness to converse. One of the critical elements of a conversation is that if one is wrong about a point, one is willing to acknowledge that and eliminate the part that was wrong from further conversation. Antievolutionists apparently can't, or only very rarely, do this. Look up "gish bullfrog" for the canonical example.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry | December 22, 2007 3:14 PM
Mark,
Just out of curiosity, which form of Intelligent Design would you prefer be discussed in school? How many different forms should be given careful attention?
Only one? Two? Thirty?
From my reading, I'd hazard a guess that there are hundreds of different forms of Intelligent Design from thousands of different religions.
There are only a couple of different forms of naturalistic explanation of why there are so many different (but related) forms of species, and these are sometimes compared in class and their faults (like Lamarckism) are tested and pointed out - when the curriculum allows, and as the harried high school teachers find the time.
Intelligent Design is a (ahem) theory that offers no proof, no evidence, and no testability. As such, it fails the basic definition of "science". "Darwinists" (as the IDers like to call them) have been asking for testable proof - begging for it! A scientist who comes up with a testable proof of ID is an instant shoo-in for the Nobel Prize! Fame and Fortune await!
And scientists love to one-up each other, and prove the other guy's theory is garbage by presenting their own, better theory! But the rules of the game require that the new theory have repeatable, testable evidence, as agreed by a peerage of potentially hostile reviewers - or else the newly proposed theory is merely crap.
Descent with modification has been observed, tested, and is used as the basis of biology today. An entire successful field of science and medicine is based upon this humble theory.
Which field of science is based upon Intelligent Design?
Posted by: Calladus | December 22, 2007 3:14 PM
Re: "I'm sure PZ and a host of others can flood this thread with links to demonstrate exactly where you are just plain wrong "
Why not demonstrate why I'm so wrong in front of an audience, in a public school, say?
Why do you censor dissent in schools?
Posted by: Mark | December 22, 2007 3:16 PM
It's ironic how folks who tout their 'reason' and 'freethought' censor with such vigor.
It's time to toss Mark in the Dungeon for insipidity and wanking.
Posted by: Ichthyic | December 22, 2007 3:21 PM