…and this is a 
Get the popcorn!
Category: Creationism
Posted on: January 30, 2008 8:27 PM, by PZ Myers
Floridians are meeting to discuss evolution! You just have to read one account, complete with quotes, of a creationist mob trying to articulate their opposition to science. There are plenty of amusing examples of dumbitude, but this one is my favorite:
Referring to the discovery that Pluto no longer is considered a planet by scientists today, Kendall said scientific opinions can change as scientists explore new information.
You have to understand…this fellow Kendall was using that as an argument against evolution.
Comments
The reference to the "discovery" that Pluto is not a planet is funny in itself. It makes it sound like we found a sign on Pluto that said "not really a Planet, sorry."
Posted by: FutureMD | January 30, 2008 8:44 PM
The link appears to have been slashdotted, er, ... pharyngulated.
Posted by: talapus | January 30, 2008 8:48 PM
FutureMD,
I thought we sent new Horizons there to read the fine print.
Posted by: Sili | January 30, 2008 9:07 PM
Gomers.
Posted by: Hank Fox | January 30, 2008 9:12 PM
As compared to, say "They believe that 6000-10000 years ago there was nothing (but god), then suddenly after six days there was everything."
And yes, Kemple is wrong in so many ways, but he also misses the irony.
Posted by: KiwiInOz | January 30, 2008 9:15 PM
I'm left wondering who was the first to discover Pluto was not a planet and if he got the chance to name it again?
Posted by: Dutch Delight | January 30, 2008 9:16 PM
PZ & co.,
Is it worth writing to Florida school boards over this, or is it waste of time? Entertainment value aside, I'd love to act.
Posted by: James | January 30, 2008 9:17 PM
Somehow, by changing what we call a ball of rock out there, we can actually falsify its existence. So they learned that lesson, and now they're applying it to evolution. No big deal.
Posted by: jeff | January 30, 2008 9:19 PM
The more I read quotes like that, the more I become convinced of my developing hypothesis that its not evolution that's the problem, but change. I mean, think about it:
They reject the notion that the earth, and the life that lives on it, has radically changed over millenia, in favor of the notion that since its creation the earth, and the life on it, has been relatively constant in form and function.
They consider it a failing of science that when confronted by evidence scientists will change what they consider the "truth", as compared to the superior "truth" of the never-changing Bible (or other revealed religious work). They also reject any evidence that the Bible has changed.
Politically, they held it against John Kerry that he changed his opinion on issues after gaining more evidence, while they are (or were) proud of W's insistence of sticking to a decision or opinion once made even in the face of evidence to the contrary.
As such, an appeal along the lines of "Scientists don't know what they are doing because they 'discovered' Pluto isn't a planet and changed their collective minds." works because, to them and their audience, Change Is Bad. Admitting error is bad. They don't make mistakes, or at least the folks they listen to don't. d/dt (mind) = 0.
As opposed to folks on this side of the debate, the more highly trained of which observe change, quantify error, embrace the notion that Science isn't revelation, but conversation. We understand that Principia Mathematica, On The Origin of Species, and Über einen die Erzeugung und Verwandlung des Lichtes betreffenden heuristischen Gesichtspunkt are not handed down from on high, absolute truth not to be questioned, but rather are brilliant insights by people -- humans, with flaws and errors of their own -- who saw what others saw and put it together differently than anyone else did at the time. Their work is added to the conversation and built upon by others as time goes by.
We embrace change; they fear it. We don't understand how they can think that way; they don't understand how we can think this way. I think I'm onto something here.
Posted by: Blaise Pascal | January 30, 2008 9:36 PM
Forget the popcorn; for shit like this, I need a good stiff drink.
Posted by: Will E. | January 30, 2008 9:45 PM
For a while there I thought the article was going to be more balanced than anything we would expect from Baptist News - sure, they included in the beginning the inane, nay asinine comment about Pluto, but it was followed up with quotes from a couple of actual sane people saying that the new standards were non-dogmatic and meant to prepare students not just for further, continued higher education but for the real world.
And then comes the Baptist punchline. Example after example of creationist soundbites, from "the new standards stifle openmindedness" to "evolution is unproven" without mentioning which parts are unproven. It is also clearly evident that these pinheads have no idea what evolution is. ("They believe that millions of years ago there was nothing and then suddenly there was something." This is NOT evolutionary theory, but I think everyone here is aware of that.) They parade a list of so-called "well-educated people" who disagree with evolutionary theory, and not a one of them is connected to any biological study. Plus a "senior fellow" of a "think tank" from the CWA? Please...
Let's just hope the school board isn't half as retarded as these creationists.
Posted by: Sir Craig | January 30, 2008 9:45 PM
So, even though in itself it changes not a whit about what we know concerning the-dwarf-planet-formerly-known-as-planet-pluto -- no change in hypotheses, no discredited theory -- this change in categorization is supposed to prove that scientists are so fallible that they don't know a planet from a peanut?
The fact is that a slow accumulation of data suggested that Pluto really was just one member of a substantial class of trans-neptunian rocky snowball, leading to this change in categorization. Whereas the Bible, like Dewars, never varies. Fundamentalists consider this proof of science's weakness, when it's just proof of the Bible's irrelevancy.
Posted by: idlemind | January 30, 2008 9:46 PM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Democracy simply doesn't work. [/Kent Brockman]
The pathetic thing is that these folks think they're actually engaging in intellectual debate instead of showing off how intellectually vacuous they really are.
Posted by: MAJeff | January 30, 2008 9:53 PM
Dem der scine kin cjange. It burns so bad I'm fucking charred like a goddamn amberjack.
Posted by: danley | January 30, 2008 9:54 PM
B.P.: Bingo. Change makes them anxious. Known unknowns make them nervous, while the unknown unknowns are scary beyond all reason. It's a refusal to Grow Up and glimpse the world as it is.
Posted by: idlemind | January 30, 2008 9:55 PM
The individual school boards are IMHO pretty much a lost cause, particularly for those outside each district in question.
The decisive decision is due from, and constructive comments are needed at, the Florida State Board of Ed. Florida Citizens for Science has a call to action with all of the relevant addresses.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | January 30, 2008 9:55 PM
Only to a creationist is the ability to reevaluate past conclusions based on new data a bad thing.
Posted by: Triphesas | January 30, 2008 9:58 PM
"They believe that millions of years ago there was nothing and then suddenly there was something."
The fact that people seriously think that this is a scientific a conclusion of the big bang theory and evolution probably highlights the shortcomings of the science education people have been given at school.
Posted by: Tom K | January 30, 2008 9:59 PM
My previous attempt at answering James @ 7 was held for moderation because I got too cute with links. Short version: Florida Citizens for Science has a call to action with all of the relevant addresses.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | January 30, 2008 10:01 PM
If I close my eyes and believe it hard enough and all the people I surround myself around believe it too...then it is reality. How very post-modern of these braindead hicks.
Posted by: CS | January 30, 2008 10:06 PM
Pierce: Thank you! I know a few folks in Florida, too, perhaps I can get them to chime in if they're in the affected counties.
Posted by: James | January 30, 2008 10:22 PM
oh jesus, that pluto argument is one of the best yet. So its been discovered its not a planet and so now we have some new and unique appreciation of pluto that we didnt before.
the trouble is that some people will hear that and find it a reasonable argument but these are people who will laugh at you you tell them if a shark is a fish and a goldfish is a fish then you are also a fish.
Posted by: extatyzoma | January 30, 2008 10:24 PM
"Drawing from philosopher Karl Popper, astronomer Fred Hoyle, law professor and author Phillip E. Johnson and quantum physicist Paul Davies"
Which one of these things is not like the others?
Posted by: Moopheus | January 30, 2008 10:26 PM
You are overintellectualizing. They are just ignorant hicks. They never got much of an education and don't value education or see why anyone else would. So being an antiscience bigot and religious fanatic seems perfectly natural to them. I bet if you looked, the dumber the comments, the less educated they are, and the farther down the socioeconomic ladder they are.
Pigs wallow in mud, fundies wallow in ignorance.
Posted by: raven | January 30, 2008 10:29 PM
Has anyone told Pluto yet?
Posted by: Bride of Shrek | January 30, 2008 10:31 PM
kiwinoz already did this but i just gotta do it again...
"My objection to their proposal is that, at its core, the suggested science standard (please no!) relative to creationism is a set of beliefs unproven. They believe that thousands of years ago there was nothing and then suddenly there was something. They have no proof. It's not replicable. It's clearly a belief," Kemple said. "You can give it a name and call it creationism, but it is nonetheless a set of beliefs."
its funny but i agree!!
Posted by: extatyzoma | January 30, 2008 10:31 PM
The list is bogus. Karl Popper once said evolution wasn't falsifiable but never said it was wrong. He later changed his mind and said it was falsifiable. Asshole liars.
I'd be surprised if Hoyle was antievo. He had a competing theory to the Big Bang, steady state. Nothing wrong with that but few buy it today. I have no idea who Paul Davies is, but why should I care what a quantum physicists thinks about treating allergies, training my goldfish, or evolution anyway.
Phillip Johnson is a fundie lawyer and a father of ID. He recently said ID had no proof and wasn't ready for prime time. He is rumored to be very old and not in good health.
Posted by: raven | January 30, 2008 10:37 PM
Friggin moron doesn't even know what evolution is. I think he confuses it with the Big Bang cosmology. Of which there is mountains of proof. Or how old the universe is, try 13.7 billion years old. Or what the Big Bang actually was.
Teaching science in Florida schools sounds like a good idea. When will they start, if ever? A first time for everything.
Posted by: raven | January 30, 2008 10:43 PM
Obviously, these poor saps have never had the pleasure of finding things out.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | January 30, 2008 10:43 PM
Posted by: Tom K | January 30, 2008 9:59 PM
My kids switched over to Americas Next Top Model the other day. The model wannabes were posing atop elephants, and one of them commented that being on the elephant made her feel closer to dinosaurs, because elephants were in the dinosaur family.
Now they are not brain surgeons, but where was that old time elementary science education?
Posted by: KiwiInOz | January 30, 2008 10:47 PM
Is a religion that's comfortable with scientific incompetence likely to be comfortable with theological incompetence?
Posted by: Les Lane | January 30, 2008 10:50 PM
The Pluto thing doesn't really fit, either. Scientists did not "discover" that Pluto wasn't a planet. What they discovered were several other bodies that made their current classification scheme unworkable unless either Pluto was reclassified as not a planet or a lot of other things got named as planets, and they decided it made the most sense to change the category Pluto got put in.
Posted by: Carlie | January 30, 2008 10:52 PM
re #13:
"Amen"(sorry MAJeff - word fits). The ignorance about the basic nature of science - what science is and how it works is astounding.
Posted by: foxfire | January 30, 2008 10:58 PM
On the other hand, maybe these people have a point. I'm sure they'd be much more comfortable mashing mice into poultices for their ailments then relying on those stupid "scientific" doctors and their ever-changing advances in medicine.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | January 30, 2008 11:20 PM
They believe that millions of years ago there was nothing and then suddenly there was something. They have no proof. It's not replicable.
Creationist idiots believe that 6,000 years ago there was nothing and then suddenly there was something. They have no proof. It's not replicable.
I begin to believe in miracles. It's a miracle that these fucktards are able to learn basic potty-training, and how to speak and write.
raven writes:
Pigs wallow in mud, fundies wallow in ignorance.
Actually, left to their own devices and with enough space, pigs are fairly clean animals. But you can leave a fundie in a library and it'll still wallow in ignorance.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | January 30, 2008 11:34 PM
I don't get it. Religions change their mind all the time. Like the mormontards who decided that black people actually can get into heaven (as servants) because they were too chicken to stand by their beliefs in the face of the civil rights movement. Or the various christiantards who've decided that homosexuality is OK because they realized that their congregations and ministries are already full of gays. Religions change their "mind" constantly - and based on opportunism, political expedience, or convenience. At least the scientists who argued about whether Pluto was a planet or not weren't worried about whether the disagreement was going to hit them in the collection-plate.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | January 30, 2008 11:45 PM
On the other hand - on the bright side - this David Campbell dude fucking rocks:
"Did we eliminate other concepts? Yes, we did," said Campbell, who identified himself as a lifelong Christian. "We did not include Intelligent Design based on legal work and on decisions made earlier. I would also point out that we eliminated dogmatic ideas like flat earth, astrology, geocentrism and the prospect that canals on Mars were actually constructed by intelligent life."
Within the scientific community, Campbell asserted, there is no argument about the specifics of evolution. "The standards we prepared are designed to prepare students for the real world -- advanced high school courses, college courses and ultimately the real world in life," he said.
Campbell also stated, "Biology without evolution is like physics without movement, like chemistry without the periodic table. It's the glue that holds our subject together."
Somebody give that man a lifetime's supply of microphones.
Posted by: Max Udargo | January 30, 2008 11:59 PM
I truly believe florida is a microcosm of america's problems.
Posted by: Ryan Young | January 31, 2008 1:59 AM
It amazes me that these people allege with certainty that there are flaws and errors in evolutionary theory which must be taught in public schools and yet they won't share their evidence with the scientific community.
There are thousands of scientists going over the evidence for evolution, and every one of them would love to find a flaw or error in the current consensus or even just a way to expand the explanatory power of the theory.
They claim that some scientists are privy to this evidence but for reasons not fully explained, are refusing to publish and earn themselves citations, fame, job promotions and Nobel prizes.
Not only are they ignorant of science, these people really, really don't understand scientists.
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck, FCD | January 31, 2008 2:03 AM
but these are people who will laugh at you you tell them if a shark is a fish and a goldfish is a fish then you are also a fish.
Please explain. (something along the lines of sharks and goldfish branching apart before humans branched apart from one of them?)
Posted by: Drekab | January 31, 2008 2:32 AM
Kendall is not a fellow, there are two X chromosomes involved.
James asked: "Is it worth writing to Florida school boards over this, or is it waste of time?"
Polite (and I emphasize POLITE) calls or emails to the Board are always welcome. The key is to win them over, not to rant at them. These are Jeb Bush appointees, and are probably looking for an easy way out. Emphasize that it's good science, that doctors and biotech workers need this, and that this isn't a religious issue.
Posted by: Josh Rosenau | January 31, 2008 2:55 AM
Its not evolution theory that is the major problem here, its science itself, and in particular the scientific method. In truth the ideal outcome for most of these religious individuals would be the elimination of science from the public education system entirely - perhaps history and geography too, just in case. That is, after all, the ultimate goal of the discovery institute as detailed in the wedge document. We need a 'Florida Citizens Against Science' organization to join all these fundies under one unified theme.
Posted by: Sigmund | January 31, 2008 3:09 AM
The reference to the "discovery" that Pluto is not a planet is funny in itself.
What's not funny but sad is your poor reading comprehension. It is not "that Pluto is not a planet" that was "discovered", it's that Pluto is no longer considered a planet, and indeed one can discover such things ... by, say, reading newspapers or blogs. And the reason that Pluto is no longer considered a planet is because of other discoveries, such as Eris and Ceres. Kendall is quite correct that "scientific opinions can change as scientists explore new information". But, as PZ points out, it's absurd to take the evolution of scientific opinion in the light of new evidence as an argument against biological evolution (especially as contrasted to religious views that aren't based on evidence at all).
Posted by: truth machine | January 31, 2008 4:29 AM
"Drawing from philosopher Karl Popper, astronomer Fred Hoyle, law professor and author Phillip E. Johnson and quantum physicist Paul Davies"
Which one of these things is not like the others?
You presumably mean Johnson, but the question rather misses the mark, as none of them are biologists and only two of them (Johnson and Hoyle) reject(ed) the ToE.
I'd be surprised if Hoyle was antievo
There are apparently lots of things that you would be surprised by, raven, that you wouldn't be if you weren't so intellectually lazy. Although how anyone who has paid any attention to this subject could be unaware that Hoyle is the source of the "junkyard Boeing 747" argument escapes me.
Posted by: truth machine | January 31, 2008 4:54 AM
Meanwhile, over here in decadent liberal atheistic soft-on-terrorists Yurrp, we prepare for the growth of our biotech industries as Murka promotes Peace, Moxy and Freem by institutionalising ignorance.
Visa application forms are available in through your local consular office, guys. See you all over here soon.
Posted by: Amadan | January 31, 2008 5:45 AM
Posted by: Happy | January 31, 2008 6:16 AM
Amadan,is mining fossilized carbon considerd part of biotech over in Yurp?
Just askin.
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/3451
The Universal Mining Machine
Posted by Ugo Bardi on January 24, 2008 - 9:49am in The Oil Drum: Europe
Topic: Environment/Sustainability
Tags: energy, minerals (list all tags)
Posted by: Fernando Magyar | January 31, 2008 7:17 AM
@ #26
raven - Check out this post by PZ for a little more insight into Paul Davies and his idea that science is just more faith-based-beliefs. PZ did a pretty good job of taking his argument apart, piece by piece.
Posted by: jtwurth | January 31, 2008 7:23 AM
I am forever dumbfounded by creationists that try to support their opposition to evolution by quoting the opinions of academics that have no background in biology.
I don't care how intelligent you are in your given field, it does not make you an expert in other fields. If I want to build an airplane, would I ask a biologist or an aerospace engineer? If I want to study high energy particles, do I consult a biologist or a physicist? I think the answer is clear, so why should we be impressed when a mathematician, physicist, or engineer speaks about evolution?
It's so glaringly obvious, but abundantly ignored.
-OEJ
Posted by: One Eyed Jack | January 31, 2008 7:23 AM
I agree with Raven. Most of the Dover Creationists reminded me of the slow kids from school. The ones that were nice and all but never quite got anything past fifth grade.
Watching the PBS special confirmed that view. The school board members that ascribed to creationist dogma seemed to have jobs that required showing up. They could have been Amish for all the good the public school system did for them.
Since their universe is mostly slow kids (the smart ones moved away to find paying and meaningful work)they really can't see the problem with ID. All their friends voted for Bush (from an apocryphal Pauline Kael quote on Nixon) and most of the neighbors work at equally suck jobs. Consider their life a version of Appalachian isolation. Only when they become public do they understand just how off they are.
Posted by: Mold | January 31, 2008 8:37 AM
"I would also point out that we eliminated dogmatic ideas like flat earth, astrology, geocentrism and the prospect that canals on Mars were actually constructed by intelligent life."
Ahh yes, the "fellow travellers," of ID.
Posted by: Jim A | January 31, 2008 8:46 AM
And the reason that Pluto is no longer considered a planet is because of other discoveries, such as Eris and Ceres. umm.... Ceres was discoverd in 1801 and Pluto in 1930. Ceres had ceased to be considered a planet LONG before Pluto was discovered. So it can hardly be said that it's discovery influenced the decision that Pluto shouldn't be classified as a planet. Rather its existance as a large object that orbited the sun that had been considered a minor planet or asteroid influenced the taxonomy that astronomers decided to adopt. To some extant the definition of planet was determined by what they wanted to include and exclude rather than the other way around.
...and indeed one can discover such things ... by, say, reading newspapers or blogs. This use of the word discovery is more akin to the way IDers us the word than the way scientists do. Their epistimology centers on reading the received knowlege or revlations of others. They simply don't understand that neither exists in science. While blind adherence to doctrine does happen in the scientific world, it is considered a failure of the scientific method, not some sort of critical defense of "scientific fact."
Posted by: Jim A | January 31, 2008 9:18 AM
What they do in Florida for fun:
Motorcycles, monster trucks, sports & strongmen to take part in evangelistic event presentations
ORLANDO (FBC)--Hands-on evangelistic training will be offered at the 2008 Evangelism Conference March 2-4 at the First Baptist Church of Orlando.
New to the conference this year, the Tuesday afternoon session will feature six different special evangelistic event presentations. These presentations will take place outside on the First Baptist campus.
The F.A.I.T.H. Riders, Christian motorcyclists, will have motorcycle demonstrations. Their ministry is aimed at reaching people with their motorcycles who may not normally be a part of an organized church or Bible study.
CrossHeir Outfitters will feature outdoorsman ideas, focusing on Christ-centered outdoors experiences. The mission of the CrossHeir ministry is to deepen the faith of people, nurture congregational life, and lift up leaders for Christian service. CrossHeir's 50-foot ministry trailer will be onsite for viewing and demonstrations.
Team Impact, who share the Gospel message with feats of strength, will speak about their ministry and give a demonstration. Through partnerships with local churches, Team Impact has reached entire cities and communities. In 2007, Team Impact went into 52 schools in the Orlando area in one week and over 600 decision cards were filled out during the Team Impact crusade at the First Baptist Church of Orlando.
Wild Horse Ministries with Paul Daily, the Horse Whisperer will show how he shares the plan of salvation while taming a horse. In this unique ministry, Daily does not "break" untamed horses, but "gentles" them until they let him bridle, saddle and ride them--all within two hours. Daily uses this ability to reach people who shy away from organized religion and church. The submission of the horse is used to illustrate the submission of man to God.
Monsters on a Mission, an outreach utilizing monster trucks, will have a vehicle onsite for viewing during the session. This extreme outreach ministry bases their ministry approach on Bible verse John 3:16 and is aimed at reaching unchurched families.
Men's Sporting Ministry, an outreach of the First Baptist Church of Bonifay, will be onsite during the session to discuss their many outreach strategies. Hunting, fishing, high school football, luncheons, rodeos, wild game feasts, and archery tournaments are some of their annual evangelistic efforts. In each of their activities the Gospel message is intentionally shared.
Enough said.
Posted by: CalGeorge | January 31, 2008 9:24 AM
Does the bible consider Pluto to be a planet? Gee, everyone knows that there are only six planets. At least the religionists didn't flip flop about that.
Oh, a Google search for "planets bible" turns up only really out-there woo. Twenty first century indeed.
Posted by: Mena | January 31, 2008 9:45 AM
Fred Hoyle, 'cuz he's the only one without a "P" in his name.
Kin Ah get mah Dixie County high skool diploma now?
James @ 20: The appropriate place to apply pressure is the State Board of Ed (see Florida Citizens for Science links in comments 18 & 40); those individual retro school boards are pretty much a lost cause.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | January 31, 2008 9:50 AM
Has anyone told Pluto yet?
Yes. It wasn't pretty.
I've been noticing mucho "who has a degree in biology" statements being made after some quote from a creationist in an article. I wonder who checks these facts, if anyone (probably no one). It seem that people are making false claims to legitimacy (which goes on all the time on the creo-carny circuit), or the educational system isn't reaching some people, or the bible-college-science-degrees are proliferating.
Posted by: Kristine | January 31, 2008 10:32 AM
Good point. Many of the bible colleges give out degrees in biology. The I. Creation Research Institute in Texas wants to give out advanced degrees.
And there are any number of places where one can send in 4 cereal box tops and a few bucks and get a Ph.D. in whatever you want.
The latter is so common that in some states it is illegal to list diploma mill degrees on a resume or CV.
Posted by: raven | January 31, 2008 10:47 AM
We all know (because of our educations and experiences in and with science)that all science includes uncertainties, imperfections, and debates--by definition.
Objectivity IS a key component.
Alternative hypotheses are necessary.
But as a scientist and former high school science teacher, I assert that middle and high schools are NOT the place to present students with fringe theories and debated minutia related to something as well-supported and fundamental as evolutionary theory. Particularly when the "alternatives" do not qualify as scientific.
Middle school and high school children are just beginning to learn about science, its history, its past and present conclusions, and a little bit about how it works. Adding any emphasis to truly radical fringe ideas and obscure contested details distorts reality, skews the true validity of evolutionary theory, and contaminates the young students' incipient understanding of science.
Yes, they MUST learn the essential uncertainty scientific processes, and they MUST learn to be skeptics--but they need the very substantial foundations before they can objectively evaluate broadly fundamental ideas like evolutionary theory. To suggest that a 14-year old can generate a truly informed opinion on the validity of major theories of science is more than a stretch. Millions of adults don't know objectivity from fantasy.
As a scientist and one-time high school science teacher, I see the biggest problem with this idea of teaching the
Posted by: Ryan Hayes | January 31, 2008 11:05 AM
Of course the sheer ignorance of Kendall's view of Pluto's "change of status" also explains it. Kendall's scared of change. Change is imperfection in many religious views, and thus it is bad.
The fact that scientists' opinions about Pluto in fact changed not one whit over this minor taxonomic shift is lost on her. And even if it were explained, she'd go off to the creationist websites and find where scientists did indeed change there minds, therefore science is inferior to religion....
Seriously, one of the main judgments against science by these people is that it can change, although one of the major lies of the IDists is that "Darwinism" is fundamentalism which cannot change. Despite the latter claim, any change that they see is pounced upon by the IDists to say that, for instance, since non-Darwinian issues have to be brought up, then "Darwinism" is wrong.
so they're also fundamentally opposed to change, of course, and "design" is a comforting fiction of the past and of the present among the gullible. It's simple, easy to understand (God did it, so get on God's side), and it doesn't change (the supporting lies do, but the "God did it" does not, even if God needs a pseudonym in ID). In fact, its very unfalsifiability in principle is one of the most frequent arguments in favor of it, as they claim that we'd have to be able to rule out the possibility of design before we could "honestly oppose" ID (this has been stated at UD often). Creationism and ID are conservatism in the worst sense of the word, "resting assured in the arms of Jesus," while science is uncertainty and a constant stream of research and study.
It's the virtues of science that these people oppose (when they're not projecting, anyhow), because so many of them lack either the ability or the will to put up with the discipline of science. Which would not be so bad, except that they're trying to shield their children from the discipline of scientific thinking as well.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | January 31, 2008 11:06 AM
Sorry, the above comment needs a little editing of extraneous partial sentences at the end...
Posted by: Ryan Hayes | January 31, 2008 11:07 AM
I meant my post (#57), not yours Glen D.
Posted by: Ryan Hayaes | January 31, 2008 11:09 AM
"Referring to the discovery that Pluto no longer is considered a planet by scientists today, Kendall said scientific opinions can change as scientists explore new information."
See, it's the magic word "opinion". It's their way of implying that scientific research, because it's mutable, is no better than what we what think of Britney Spears, whereas Biblical Truth Stands Unchanging Forever (unless, of course, you don't ignore all those councils trying to determine what Bible "books" are real and what are Apocrypha).
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | January 31, 2008 11:24 AM
So most of the kiddies attending that church where heathens?
This is something that has really started to bother me. It's all about fear and hell, this is why religion is so effective. It's the emotive part of the brain. He talks about the plan of salvation, salvation from what? Hell. A hell created by the version of God who know seeks to save one from it.
Without hell does the entire religion fall apart?
Posted by: JimC | January 31, 2008 11:28 AM
I reiterate what I've said previously, I think it should say "evolution is a fundamental concept underlying all biology," not "the fundamental concept."
Her "argument" about science changing that follows the above quote (Pluto...) shows another fundamental flaw in her understanding. Evolution is "fundamental" to biology because it works, not because it's "true" in some religious sense, and there would be nothing whatsoever that is wrong or dogmatic regarding the recognition that evolution is fundamental to biological science today even if evolution were overthrown tomorrow.
For "biology" is not some grand truth replacing Kendall's religion, it is merely science which deals with life as best we know how to do it. Her problem with that is the problem of "going against God's will," since how would one decide against God (as her religion apparently dictates the situation) based on a science that might change?
Well, Kendall, first off there's really a vanishingly small chance that evolution will be overthrown at any time. It's about as likely as General Relativity being found to be "wrong" in the sense that it should be completely discarded. That is, philosophically we know that neither is or can be "proven," but both rest on observations which are like those we depend on for our lives and for deciding whether to free or to execute people (DNA evidence--and I'm anti-death penalty, if far from being an activist on the issue).
And perhaps more importantly, you have no reason to believe your Bible in the first place, so that even if evolution were on shaky grounds, instead of being on the solid grounds where it is, it would still be infinitely more solid than are creationism and ID (as in, divide any evidence for evolution by the zero evidence for "design", and the limit is infinity). That's as close as you'll ever come to "actual infinity" in this life, the infinitely better case for evolution (or anything else with evidence) than the "case for design" (or anything else with no evidence).
It's really something versus nothing, and in science class one should teach something, rather than the nothing you want to interject into actual science.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | January 31, 2008 11:31 AM
I like this. It's the way to turn the near-total agreement among scientists that evolution, like the laws of thermodynamics, holds true today as much as ever, into an "argument" against it. Yes, they agree, but they are very afraid, you know.
What, Christian scientists have no courage, no strength of conviction from their faith? Is this what Christianity is all about, a bunch of cowards refusing to disagree, because they're afraid for their jobs? Didn't Christians used to face lions for their faith? So I guess you're saying, Shaw, that God is dead, that faith means nothing, that indeed there is no evidence against evolution being presented (you can't call Behe's shit "evidence"), and that nonetheless there are a bunch of cowardly religionists who disagree with evolution.
What, dimwitted buffoon, do you think tenure is all about? Sure, moonbats like Gonzalez became don't get tenure, but Behe has a job for life, despite being an incompetent jerk making a lot of money (at least for a professor) by scamming people. Are you really telling me that tenured professors, with guaranteed jobs, are still cowering idiots who don't dare to question "Darwinism", all because they'll be ridiculed for it? Surely, if they were so certain that ID will triumph with a new set of "open-minded students," at least a few of them would put up with the slings and arrows to champion the new science, so that posterity will remember them for the heros they are. Other scientists have done this, why not Christians, why not IDists?
Paraonoia, it's all that they have. "Darwinism" won out in the Soviet Union over the pseudoscience of Lysenkoism, in part because there were courageous atheists (and maybe theists as well) who were willing to risk real persecution (that is, prison, exile, torture), and in part because the damn theory of evolution by investigable means just happens to work. Paranoia from these IDiots would have it that tenured professors who would at most have to put up with some name-calling and shunning at conferences, won't stick up for God and the "truth of ID".
Either their religion is the most pathetic belief in the world, or these cowardly "dissidents" just happen to fear that their stupidity will in fact be exposed.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | January 31, 2008 11:46 AM
Just to be fair to Behe, I'm not saying he's incompetent at biochemistry. He has certainly found his area of incompetence, however, and appears more than happy to have his public persona rest upon matters that he is incompetent to discuss.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | January 31, 2008 11:51 AM
Oh, it works just fine when the voters have an idea of what they're talking about.
Bingo. We are more closely related to the goldfish than both of us are to the sharks. Ever eaten ray wing? You'll notice.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | January 31, 2008 11:59 AM
Les Lane (#30) asked:
There's such a thing as theological competence?
Or did you mean to say 'theological incontinence'? But, if so, I suppose my earlier question still stands...
Posted by: Vic | January 31, 2008 12:03 PM
Sorry, I should have mentioned that rays are just flattened sharks with crushing teeth.
They have never thought that far.
They have never in their life had a thought of such length. They aren't used to thinking.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | January 31, 2008 12:06 PM
I skimmed through the posts, and apparently nobody else noticed this:
That proves evolution, if nothing else does!
- pwe
Posted by: pwe | January 31, 2008 12:08 PM
Re Pluto
Actually, the reclassification of Pluto is mostly due to the fact that improved observation techniques showed that it was much smaller then was thought when it was discovered.
Posted by: SLC | January 31, 2008 12:10 PM
"They have no proof. It's not replicable."
Lots of things aren't replicable, but can be deduced from data. I'm pretty sure that my mom got pregnant from my dad and that I'm the result. Pretty hard to replicate that one though. So I guess there's no proof I'm my parent's son.
What the hell is he talking about?
Posted by: Dahan | January 31, 2008 12:33 PM
#41
What you're saying, Sigmund, is exactly why I consider science so important in helping me decide who I'll vote for. It's a cultural indicator. If they'll treat ID as a credible theory, they'll treat ANYTHING as a credible theory.
Right now, I'm leaning very heavily towards Obama, but if he says something about, "Well, we should teach the controversy", that'd probably kill it for me. Happily, for me at least, he shows zero signs of that.
And what sad for me is that I think about 30% of Americans (a solid majority in some states) think ID is completely credible. They're letting superstition get in the way. "Oh, we're here for a reason, and that reason is God!".
I just don't want to see those people in power.
Of the 45 people who spoke at this hearing, does anyone know how many defended ID? I can't see it in the article.
Posted by: MikeM | January 31, 2008 12:38 PM
The Baptist press didn't even touch on the dogma of atomic theory of matter, the theory of quantum mechanics, cell theory of biology, germ theory of disease. I think the Baptists are getting lazy and soft. How can a self-reproaching (oops- respecting)Baptist accept any rational use of inductive causality in the face of an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent sky god? It's intellectual slovenliness I say! This calls for a wholesale reform of our indoctrinational (oops-educational) system. Too long have they sat in the forefront of progressive movement! Too long have they merely decried the single-mindedness of reason! Too long have they accepted the tool of a scientifically bases technological society into their homes, offices, and there very HOUSES of WORSHIP! They should be ashamed and draw a collective breath (with Jimmy Swaggart) and yell in clear collected hysteria "We have sinned!" :)
Posted by: mothra | January 31, 2008 12:48 PM
...The DISCOVERY that Pluto isn't a planet anymore? It's not a discovery, it's a fine-tuning of a classification. What the hell are they babbling about?
Posted by: Michelle | January 31, 2008 1:00 PM
What else is odd: Not just biology but all other sciences conflict with their bronze age mythology. To be consistent they should also oppose teaching astronomy, geology, paleontology, history, anthropology etc.. These people are so dimwitted they probably don't even know what the other sciences say. Or care. They are just repeating creo talking points from some card deck their leaders gave them like parrots.
Clearly they are antiscience. Just as clearly they live in the 21st century surrounded by the products of science, long lives through medicine, cheap and abundant food, the technological miracles we take for granted. Bunch of parasites, reaping the benefits of demon controlled, atheistic scientists while condemming them.
Posted by: raven | January 31, 2008 1:07 PM
"To be consistent they should also oppose teaching astronomy, geology, paleontology, history, anthropology etc.."
That's the next wave of attacks, after biology.