Another Fight About Framing and Evolution: Can I Play?

netlog
sohbet siteleri

creationist school board member William Cunningham, who declared, "Two thousand years ago someone died on a cross. Can't someone take a stand for him?"

That would be Bill Buckingham.

An excellent post, and a great suggestion to promote positive aspects of evolutionary science. Thanks, Mike.

Great post. And I love the response that you used in your talk r.e. the PA school board member - just the perfect point to make.

"Personally, I think Dawkins in his written arguments and public utterances incorrectly conflates three phenomena: religion as cultural identity, supernaturalism, and deism/theism. Preaching to the choir is one thing, but if you're trying to reach people who aren't atheists, this conflation is off-putting and weakens the development of a convincing argument for non-atheists. I also think Dawkins at some basic level does not grasp the dimensions of the U.S. political landscape, nor does he realize (or perhaps he does, and he just doesn't care) to what extent the creationist controversy is a political battle."

Im not sure I agree with the first part. Dawkin's arguments are strong and really dead on when it comes to theism. Though it takes a rational mind to understand those arguments. And not everybody thinks rationally. And I have heard him say he is reaching out to the people on the fence. He doesnt try to convince flat earthists that the earth is round.

Political battle? Perhaps I am missing something. But dont creationists push for ID in schools because of their religious beliefs?

"We need to put creationists on the defensive by arguing, part of the time, on behalf of the utility of evolutionary biology.... Force creationists to defend the morality of their position."

Oh, good - it sounds like I'm doing it right. Rebecca Watson says audio from the Boston meeting will be available, so I'm looking forward to hearing what you had to say.

I am not sure I agree with what you say about Dawkins...but one thing is for sure: I think you nailed it when you said we need to change approach.

We need to start talking about how useful the "theory of evolution" is - and how in science, if you can't use a theory, that gets thrown out of the window sooner or later. We need to focus on getting the terminology straight, and to look at the positive, useful side of our work.

Well done!

I wasn't aware of the Overton Window, but I have been saying the same thing for years: the extremes define the middle. If scientists muzzle the views of the extremes, then the middle becomes closer to the opposite extreme, namely, the ID/creationist position. That's why I say that people like PZ are critically important in the struggle.

Political battle? Perhaps I am missing something. But dont creationists push for ID in schools because of their religious beliefs?

Religion is a big part of it, but at this point it's largely about constituencies and loyalties. When largely right-wing religious leaders promote ID, they aren't just fighting for themselves: they're providing a weapon to other conservatives who want to attack the other side. For example, fiscal conservatives might support IDers in order to reduce the support to publicly fund science, to cut government spending as a whole. Others might support ID in order to make a deal with the large religious base. Or for no other reason than that many liberals oppose it, and it's a weapon like any other.

Unfortunately, it's not just about religion any more. It's about taking sides, which is imho never good for policy.

I enjoyed your talk, and I couldn't help but applaud your final line. Emphasizing the positive is critical and you presented compelling examples (and LOLcats). If there were more time I would have liked to talk about what we, as biologists, can do to engage evolution opponents in this fight.

Excellent post, thanks!

Now, THAT is proper framing. An Excellent post.

Bravo!

Now I'm really sorry I missed your talk last night. But just couldn't make time. Nice post!

My response was, "In the last two minutes, someone died from a bacterial infection. We take a stand for him."

That's fucking beautiful, dude!

One thing JamesF and not-MAJeff and I were discussing--can you see the woman in the red dress in your TGACAGACTA.... slide?

Very enjoyable and informative talk. Thank you.

Good post, but I disagree to an extent about how/why we should be arguing for evolution in biology. Biology without evolution is like math without addition. It's so fundamental that absolutely nothing that gets done in biology that does not use evolution as the underpinning. If some religious group got a bee in their bonnet about addition being false, the correct way to argue wouldn't be to show them that engineers use addition in their calculations to build a bridge. The correct way to argue would be to say, "well, if you're going to believe that addition is false, then there's no such thing as math. Here's why that's a very stupid thing to say...." Giving specific examples of how addition is useful would be counterproductive, because it implies that something is only true if it's useful in their daily lives.

2,000 years ago a guy died on a cross then went to eternal paradise which he was already in because he was god in human form but also his own son or something along these lines.

My argument here is this "So?". I mean if he died and that was him dead then its a bit of a sacrifice but if he dies and then goes to eternal paradise then what is the big deal. He didn't really get a bum deal. I am assuming eternal paradise is a good thing. If I believed in such a thing. Isn't it like winning the lottery and banging Scarlett Johansson and Jessica Alba in a threesome all in the one day. I'd take a couple days of torture for that reward.

Jesus is a whiny bitch.

Mike FTW!

ya, if atheist were real clever, with every scientific fact that redfines religious tenets, they would phrase it: look at what we discovered about how god did this and god did that.

Thank you! Finally a positive, constructive way to approach this whole debacle.

"ya, if atheist were real clever, with every scientific fact that redfines religious tenets, they would phrase it: look at what we discovered about how god did this and god did that.

Posted by: genesgalore | March 25, 2008 10:19 PM"

Huh?

What kind of frame does the Overton Window have?

Just kidding!

I like your perspective. Thanks for the blog.

ok steve. we all should know that religion is, for the most part, a bunch of balderdash. It has served a purpose to advance civilizations and provide order, but alas it has outlived it's utility. Also, it's difficult to move the brainwashed forward. it can be done but insults often result in entrenchment. so that was the point. And while i have the podium, lol. That word atheist. It's got to go. It has a negative connotation and implies that theism is valid. There has to be a better word, that describes realism.

PZ sent me over here, and I think that I will lurk awhile, if you don't mind. That was a truly excellent blogpost-- quite thought provoking. You have caused me to do some thinking about what practical steps we can take at the local level to promote the utility of evolutionary biology to a general public that is not much used to rational thought. It's a tough sell, but it shouldn't be impossible.

Mike,

I may agree only 80% with you, but you've added a much-needed dose of rational, clear-headed, even brilliantly insightful thinking to the whole affair. Nice post.

-Crow

making the "concept" of a five billion year old, or so, planet relative to the last billion years, let alone the last 70,000, is a good start. some 70,000 years ago some shit happened that resulted in neaderthal and sapiens and who knows whoelse to be compressed to the equator. talk about survival of the fittest. just a blink of an eye.

Good points.

Personally, I think Dawkins in his written arguments and public utterances incorrectly conflates three phenomena: religion as cultural identity, supernaturalism, and deism/theism.

I can't say I fully agree, from my admittedly narrow reading. (Mainly The God Delusion.)

IIRC Dawkins mentions the supernatural essentially once, when defining The God Hypothesis. But it is then discarded as it only served as an alternative hypothesis for his null hypothesis in his analysis. And he confines this analysis to the creationist subset of religions, but states the reasons why it isn't of importance for his goal.

Instead Dawkins is somewhat coarsegrained in his analysis of religion in culture. I think it is correct to address that aspect over the board for practical reasons as he does, as the debate is most often made in this manner. But at the same time one could wish for more statistical support instead of an anecdotal approach.

As Dawkins treats the religious identity on the practices, I don't think he actually treats the theological parts (deism/theism) in general, except as it pertains to his analysis of creationism. And that is one reason apologetics gets so upset here, they are used to bring their tool set of theology (such as "supernaturalism") to the table.

So AFAIU it's not as much conflations but a judicious separation of what he needs to treat.

and while we are at it. why do some make the assumption that mutation occurs but only occurs once??? i find it quite difficult that penquins ever flew. sense would say that they padlled and kept on paddling.

get this through your fricken heads and keep it there. energy flows where ever it can, and the permutations are "problematic" not to mention fascinating.

Bill Buckingham is my hero -- he called Judge Jones a "jackass" on the PBS NOVA TV program about the Dover case and called him a "liar" in the book "Monkey Girl." Those names are appropriate. In a Dickinson College commencement speech, Judge Jones showed extreme prejudice against Intelligent Design and the Dover defendants -- regardless of whether or not ID is a religious concept -- by saying that his Dover decision was based on his notion that the Founders based the establishment clause upon a belief that organized religions are not "true" religions. He said,

. . . .this much is very clear. The Founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry. At bottom then, this core set of beliefs led the Founders, who constantly engaged and questioned things, to secure their idea of religious freedom by barring any alliance between church and state.

-- from http://www.dickinson.edu/commencement/2006/address.html

Ironically, Jones gave the speech while standing behind the Dickinson College seal, which was designed by USA Founders Benjamin Rush and John Dickinson and which contains a picture of an open bible and the college motto "religion and learning, the bulwark of liberty" in Latin.

Also, in establishment clause histories given in two Supreme Court decisions, Everson v. Board of Education (1947) and Engel v. Vitale (1962), Jones' above "true religion" is not even given honorable mention as a contributing factor (so much for Judge Jones' emphasis on the importance of precedent).

The most irritating thing about Judge Jones is that he has gotten a lot less hell than he should have gotten for the things that he has said and done.

Brian | March 25, 2008 9:32 PM said,

Biology without evolution is like math without addition. It's so fundamental that absolutely nothing that gets done in biology that does not use evolution as the underpinning.

That is total bullshit and you know it. I don't even remember studying evolution in my high school courses in biology and human physiology, and a lot of high school biology students today do not study evolution.

Single fundamental underlying concepts are rare, even in narrow fields. For example, it is a true statement that Fourier's Law is the single fundamental concept underlying all analyses of heat conduction in solids.

Larry, that is not bullshit. The entire idea behind studying specific organisms in even a high school biology class depends on the information learned applying to more different organisms. Which is at least evolution-the-fact as known by Linnaeus et al. even if you don't discuss the mechanism of natural selection.

And the instant that you start to compare two or more species, natural selection comes into play. And there isn't a lot of biology that doesn't involve comparing species.

The main reason that it isn't more prominent is that it's just assumed without comment much of the time. If there's a difference, biologists instantly start asking about selection pressure and a developmental path. They don't footnote C. Darwin, they just do it. It's a given.

That is total bullshit and you know it. I don't even remember studying evolution in my high school courses in biology and human physiology, and a lot of high school biology students today do not study evolution.

It may be true that a lot of high school biology curricula do not devote a lot of time to evolution (which by the way should be another reason not to "teach the controversy"), but that does not reflect the reality that evolutionary assumptions are essential to many of the life sciences. For example, the use of model organisms in virtually every biological field would be meaningless if it were not for common descent.

Larry Fafarman wrote:

I don't even remember studying evolution in my high school courses in biology and human physiology....

Are we supposed to take from this that your level of understanding of biology is evidence for or against the fundamental importance of evolutionary theory?

I think evolution isn't important for understanding and preventing infectious disease

Finally, a biologist and rational thinker who agrees with Us.

That might have been funnier if my end blockquote tag had worked.

Beautiful. I totally approve, and agree that this is a good strategy; It's about time someone started fighting back!

Yours is a way better idea than my Black Propaganda team that's been photoshopping pictures of Ken Ham and a pig in compromising positions.

That is total bullshit and you know it. I don't even remember studying evolution in my high school courses in biology and human physiology, and a lot of high school biology students today do not study evolution.

Just because you don't remember studying evolution has exactly ZERO bearing on its worth to biology. Your complete ignorance to the importance of evolution to all of biology does not make it unimportant.

You never fail to bring "teh dumb" Larry.,

Mike, excellent and thoughtful. And some VERY good suggestions.

Jud said,

"I don't even remember studying evolution in my high school courses in biology and human physiology...."
Are we supposed to take from this that your level of understanding of biology is evidence for or against the fundamental importance of evolutionary theory?

It is not merely evidence -- it is proof that evolution is not "the fundamental concept underlying all of biology," as the new Florida science standards describe it. Could heat conduction in solids be analyzed without a fundamental concept, Fourier's Law, that really underlies the whole subject? Of course not. You greedy Darwinists are going to kill the goose that lays the golden egg by continuing to insist that evolution is "the fundamental concept underlying all of biology."

Jonathan Wells says in his book "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design" (pages 80-81) that "Darwinists steal credit for scientific breakthroughs to which they contributed nothing" and calls it a form of "intellectual larceny." He says,

. .most of the fundamental disciplines in modern biology were pioneered by scientists who lived before Darwin was born. These pioneers include the sixteenth-century anatomist Andreas Vesalius, the sixteenth-century physiologist William Harvey, and the seventeenth-century botanist John Ray. They include the seventeenth-century founders of microbiology, Robert Hooke and Anton van Leeuwenhoek; the eighteenth-century founder of systematics, Carolus Linneaus; and the eighteenth-century founder of modern embryology, Caspar Friedrich Wolff. Even paleontology, which Darwinists now treat as theirs, was founded before Darwin's birth by Georges Cuvier.

-- and --

Generations of breeders have been darwined. Mendel has been darwined. Jenner and Semmelweis have been darwined. Fleming, Florey, Chain, and Waksman have been darwined. So have the real pioneers of modern biology. They've all been darwined.

Wells forgot to mention Louis Pasteur.

Part of the problem is that biologists have an inferiority complex as a result of the kind of attitude expressed by Lord Rutherford: "All science is either physics or stamp collecting." As a result of this inferiority complex, biologists have been waging a prestige war against other branches of science by boasting that biology has something that the other branches don't have, a grand central unifying principle, evolution.

I think you have a lot of good points, but when you say that Dawkins pushes the Window in a direction you like, you are not talking about with respect to science. You're clearly talking about with respect to atheism. And that doesn't refute Nisbet's argument. It simply sets you up as having a slightly different goal.

Based on your words, from the analysis point of strictly working on promoting science, Dawkins is not a wash. Unless you have an argument for him on that front that counteracts your entire first paragraph that you didn't include, Dawkins is damaging. Now, from the atheist and science/atheism = science perspective, where you are mostly only allowed to have both (the position PZ holds) he might be a wash/net benefit. But that is not Nisbet's goal. Nisbet's goal is science alone. And it is perfectly reasonable, given your initial analysis of Dawkins (a net negative on the strict science front), for him to want him to step back, so that the science front can go forward. You don't actually refute the core of Nisbet's argument with that. Furthermore, Nisbet DOES try to push other science organizations (isn't science about groups of people, not superstars?) and did so in his post that everyone's beating him about. This meme that Nisbet n'friends do nothing but sit around and beat on PZ and Dawkins all day is, frankly, completely transparent, and very tiring to see over and over and over.

I think one can argue whether the base of the 'Expelled from Expelled' event helps them more or not, but that isn't what's been actually happening, and that wasn't the CORE of Nisbet's post/argument to begin with. Furthermore, it is trivially easy to find posts, not quote-mines, but full out posts, in which PZ honestly espouses that religion and higher education (and, by extension, science) are incompatible (as I did it yesterday in responding to someone's post, here) Finding other posts along those lines? Not hard, but not something I really want to keep having to do at work to make the really obvious point that it doesn't take any quotemining to turn PZ into someone who's anti-all-religious. Hell, it took more work to make Marcott anti-catholic than it takes to make PZ looks anti-all-religious. The 'They hacked it up! It's not the truth!' concept, while often right, is not true in this case because the core is more or less what PZ seems to actively espouse.

And finally on the disagreement front, it's not about having a hidden agenda, or trying to keep atheists out of the discussion. It's about not screaming, 'RELIGION MUST GO' from the rooftops every time the topic of _evolution_ comes up. They're not. The same. Thing.

To get back on the agreement parts of your post, though. I have to agree with previous commenters, that bacterial infection line is a fantastic turnaround on the given phrase. And I do personally think that the ideas you put forward at the end are good ones. I'd _hope_ that they're ones that Nisbet agrees with. I'm not sure, because I'm not him and I have other things in my mind at the moment. The issue ends up being to me, strangely enough, that I believe PZ also would generally agree with them. But he'd also want to tack on, 'And also, being religious is bad', and, as you said about Dawkins, sorta damage the point being made.

-Mecha

Mike,
This is a partial repost from over at PZ's blog but I wanted to just note it here as well. As I have written about and talked about in presentations or media interviews dozens of times over the past year, your suggested interpretation is our most effective frame in translating the importance of evolutionary science for the wider public. In fact this is something we suggested in our original essay at Science.

The frame emphasizes defining evolution as the modern building block for advances in the medical sciences, and without evolution we wouldn't know where to begin to understand problems such as bird flu. The frame takes a complex uncertain thing for the public (evolutionary science) and connects it to a shared value and interest in social progress and solving diseases.

In fact, as I describe at my blog and in recent talks including at AAAS, this is the exact frame that the National Academies found in their focus groups and polling to be most effective in communicating about evolutionary science. As the National Academies also notes, the data show that when this progress frame is combined with a second interpretation reassuring Americans that indeed there is no conflict between science and many religious traditions, the twin frames translate into our most effective communication strategy for defending evolution in schools.

http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2008/03/at_the_national_academi…

2. Arguing that a better understanding of how life evolved is good in and of itself, and can imbue us with a certain sense of wonder.

Why is it good? What is "good"?

That was, quite simply, a brilliant response!

We need to remind everyone that while ignorance is free, its cost is incalculable. The questions not asked, experiments not performed, treatments not tested, and technologies not developed (through whatever form of intellectual intimidation) can scarcely be estimated.

The other thing we evolutionary biologists don't do enough of, and this stems from the previous point, is make an emotional and moral case for the study of evolution. Last night, I concluded my talk with a quote from Dover, PA creationist school board member William Buckingham, who declared, "Two thousand years ago someone died on a cross. Can't someone take a stand for him?"

My response was, "In the last two minutes, someone died from a bacterial infection. We take a stand for him."

I think it is relevant to point out that you have committed the Straw Man fallacy.

It is a mistake to confuse and mislabel creationists by comparing them to the Dover, PA school board member who wants to talk about a cross. Just like it is a mistake to confuse and label evolutionists or naturalists or atheists with the likes of Stalin, Nietzsche, and many other who are not talked openly by the pro-evolution crowd. I could mention names, just like you did with the Dover, PA guy, but I won't.

The reason I won't is because I take logical fallacies seriously, and I avoid them like the plague. Logical fallacies are avoided in my Christian worldview because my worldview does indeed account for the universal law of non-contradiction and moral absolutes. The atheist universe does not account for the metaphysical existence of the laws of logic or laws of morality, holding that logic is reducible to evolutionary theory, etc.

Could you please discuss creationists
that are actually relevant to the question of the merits of the evolution debate?

That would be a worthwhile discussion instead of you dishing out logical fallacies cited often by the pro-evolution crowd.

Single fundamental underlying concepts are rare, even in narrow fields. For example, it is a true statement that Fourier's Law is the single fundamental concept underlying all analyses of heat conduction in solids.

That's not true.

Single fundamental underlying concepts are rare, even in narrow fields. For example, it is a true statement that Fourier's Law is the single fundamental concept underlying all analyses of heat conduction in solids.

The first statement is "not even wrong"

The second statement misuses the terms. The fundamental concept underlying heat transfer within solids is conduction. Fourier's Law is merely a mathematical description of conduction.

It is not merely evidence -- it is proof that evolution is not "the fundamental concept underlying all of biology," as the new Florida science standards describe it. Could heat conduction in solids be analyzed without a fundamental concept, Fourier's Law, that really underlies the whole subject?

The question as posed is not analogous. It should be phrased "Can heat [transfer] within solids be [taught]without a fundamental concept, [conduction as described by] Fourier's Law, that really underlies the whole subject?" The answer is yes. It would be taught the same way you were apparently taught biology. Here is how you teach it:

1) Collect a bunch of data on heat transfer within various solids of various sizes and shapes, at various temperatures

2) Prepare a series of tables that present the data

3) Tell students how to use the tables

4) Don't point out any patterns within the tables

5) If a student notices a pattern within the tables, deflect them from investigating further

6) Never, ever mention conduction or Fourier's Law

Part of the problem is that biologists have an inferiority complex as a result of the kind of attitude expressed by Lord Rutherford: "All science is either physics or stamp collecting." As a result of this inferiority complex, biologists have been waging a prestige war against other branches of science by boasting that biology has something that the other branches don't have, a grand central unifying principle, evolution.

Actually, the history of this inferiority in the biological sciences is the perfect tool for showing how wrong your statement is.

When evolution was first proposed (long before it became accepted as a full-fledged theory) most physicists gave the age of the earth as relatively young. That's because gravity was the only known force for powering the sun. The need for huge time periods comprised many of the early rebuttals to evolution. Darwin's response? He imagined that a new source of energy might be discovered, or else his hypothesis would be disproven.

To physics at that time, this was the equivalent of an accountant telling a mathematician that fundamental changes would be required in number theory because of some scientific writings he had done. The audacity of the man!

However, Darwin (and others) did the work, and slowly brought people around to the merits of the evidence. This led directly to the search that uncovered nuclear energy, DNA, the human genome, etc (there's a reason that the computer game Civilization gives you the next two scientific advances for free if you are the first player to discover the "Theory of Evolution" :-).

I see two main reasons that you hear evolution touted so loudly, and none of them have anything remotely to do with an inferiority complex:

1. There are very few concepts like evolution that lead to such important discoveries and new understandings in such diverse fields as physics, chemistry, biology, engineering, computer programming (know about evolutionary algorithms?...Google is hiring), and many others.

2. Scientists have been forced to defend evolution to an unheard-of degree.

The quote you gave is actually an example of the superiority complex of some scientists in physics at that time, and nothing else.

Don't believe me? Well, even Stephen Hawking commented that if he had known how much molecular biology would grow and become the new "hot science", he would have chosen a career in it over physics when younger. Given that endorsement, biologists don't need to promote evolution to inflate their egos. (Side note: Hawking is also one of the signatures in the "Steve Project".)

Excellent article BTW, Mike. Very well written!

So you get to know who we are, but we don't get to know who you are? Screw that.

(I agree with your positions on creationism and Dawkins, though.)

Great closing line, Mike!

I decided some time back that if a student asked me to give classroom time to creationist "alternatives", I'd tell that student that I couldn't do it because it would be unethical.

It's unethical to lie. It's unethical for the instructor in a science class to deliberately confuse students by weakening the definition of science. It's unethical for a teacher to hold different expectations of students depending on their religious beliefs. And, even in a church-affiliated school, it's unethical to waste time set aside for science teaching by instead addressing an allegedly theological argument that's actually so devoid of intellectual content that it's not even wrong.

your suggested interpretation is our most effective frame in translating the importance of evolutionary science for the wider public. In fact this is something we suggested in our original essay at Science.

Ah yes, I usually (have to) kvetch that there is no constructive examples from Nisbet. Now I remember, I had lost interest waiting for that way before that article. My bad.

Yeah, well, Nisbet still have an uphill battle for a comprehensive framing of his framing as regards me. :-P

@ LF:

his notion that the Founders based the establishment clause upon a belief that organized religions are not "true" religions.

In the very comment you quote they mention how to find "true religion". Nothing prevents those inquirers to organize a religion. The sermons would have to have different preaching though, such as personal witnesses and statements of results of inquiry.

Single fundamental underlying concepts are rare,

Not so, we have large areas such as thermodynamics, quantum theory and others. But mainly you misunderstand - evolution is to biology as cosmology is to astronomy.

As the National Academies also notes, the data show that when this progress frame is combined with a second interpretation reassuring Americans that indeed there is no conflict between science and many religious traditions, the twin frames translate into our most effective communication strategy for defending evolution in schools.

Matt, can you point to the actual data in the National Academies report that looked at the impact of "reassuring Americans that indeed there is no conflict between science and many religious traditions"? The notion that the two aren't in conflict is included in text of Science, Evolution, and Creationism, but I honestly do not see any actual reported research on this matter, either in the National Academies report, or in the Coalition of Scientific Societies
Evolution in Science Education Survey, upon which the National Academies relied.

In other words, what is the empirical justification for your claim? (It certainly seems intuitively plausible, but plausibility is not the same thing as empirically supported.)

This post should be re-titlted, "Can only I play?" I see none of the Christian rebuttals make it past the comment moderation.

This post should be re-titlted, "Can only I play?" I see none of the Christian rebuttals make it past the comment moderation.

Have you stopped beating your wife, PRCalDude?

Or in other words, has anyone actually tried to make "Christian rebuttals" on this post?

"Beating my wife?"

Wow, Kevin. Just wow.

Yes, comments have been left.

Obviously, you've never heard of that question (Have you stopped beating your wife yet?) referred to before -- it's the prototypical loaded question, where the question itself immediately sets an image in the minds of an audience. In this case, he used it to call you on the exact same type of disingenuous rhetorical attack.

Additionally, you used "Christian rebuttals" when you should have used "Creationist rebuttals," as the two are not equivalent. Christianity by itself does not imply, nor require, Creationist viewpoints, so don't conflate the two.

Were anyone's comments being censored, I'm fairly sure Fafarman's would be the first to go.

G Barnett wrote: "Christianity by itself does not imply, nor require, Creationist viewpoints, so don't conflate the two."

Not true. In order to uphold Biblical authority, Christianity certainly does require a literal, Creationist viewpoint.

Julie Stahlhut wrote

I decided some time back that if a student asked me to give classroom time to creationist "alternatives", I'd tell that student that I couldn't do it because it would be unethical.

Bravo! That is in essence what the Dover, PA, science teachers told the Board of Education.

"Were anyone's comments being censored, I'm fairly sure Fafarman's would be the first to go."

Larry's own blog is now heavily censored despite his claim to have establised his blog to avoid "arbitrary censorship". He censors anything for which he has no answer thereby limiting the debate to his sock puppets.

Thank you very much for this useful article and the comments.

thanks you ... 45

sohbet odasına gelin amk

thanks you ..

thanks.

thaks you site admini.

thanks you

Thank for you

thenks sohbet, chat, muhabbet, sohbet odaları,sohbet sakarya,sohpet,sohbet oyun radyo,Ä°slami Sohbet, Dini Sohbet, Ä°slami Site, Dini Site, Ä°slami Chat, Ä°slami Radyo, iSlami Sohbetler, Dini Sohbetler, DiniSohbet, iSlamiSite, Dini Chat, iSlami ArkadaÅlık

wwwoww big comment nice blogg

Perfect.

thanks

thanks you

Thx.

thanks

guruba katıl
bir thanks de benden.
thanks a lot

Thxx

Thank you! Finally a positive, constructive way to approach this whole debacle.

Jenny's on fire with stupid! She starts right out saying "without a doubt in my mind I believe that vaccinations triggered Evan's autism," and it goes downhill from there, going on about being a "firsthand witness" to Evan's regression. It's all there, including the "evil pharma" gambit, in which she says there is "such a huge business in pharmaceuticals." The piece de resistance?

Thanks My Friend..

thans

Edebi Forum..

Are you a professional journalist? You write very well.

Bravo! That is in essence what the Dover, PA, science teachers told the Board of Education.

thank you soo much for information us

I am not sure I agree with what you say about Dawkins...but one thing is for sure: I think you nailed it when you said we need to change approach.

We need to start talking about how useful the "theory of evolution" is - and how in science, if you can't use a theory, that gets thrown out of the window sooner or later. We need to focus on getting the terminology straight, and to look at the positive, useful side of our work.

Well done!

Turkcell Süper Ligâin gelecek dört sezon için TV yayın hakları ihalesini Digitürk kazandı.

http://www.aytanyapi.com

Bravo! That is in essence what the Dover, PA, science teachers told the Board of Education www.elitchat.com :p

Hey I just wanted to let you know,

They should just call the crappers, offits from now on. Ima poet and didn't even know it!!!

this conflation is off-putting and weakens the development of a convincing argument for non-atheists. I also think Dawkins at some basic level does not grasp the dimensions of the U.S. political landscape, nor does he realize (or perhaps he does, and he just doesn't care) to what extent the creationist controversy is a political battle."

Im not sure I agree with the first part.

still ways to their wardrobe by the practice of using the organizer bag organized.

oynadıgınız oyunlardaki karakterleri charları yada oyunların begendiginiz karakterlerini artık tshirtlere bastırabileceginiz bir yer var
sitemize girmenizi incelemenizi bekliyoruz.

iSTANBUL CiTY

Projemiz Ãerkezköy Kızılpınar'da 26.000 m2 alan içerisinde 11 katlı 12 blok, 3300 m2 alıÅveriÅ merkezi ve alıÅveriÅ merkezinin üzerine inÅa edilecek beÅer katlı iki rezidans kule, toplam 650 daireden oluÅmaktadır. 18.000 m2 yeÅil alan, sosyal aktivite ve park alanı mevcuttur.

İstanbul Palmiye Grup Sizlere Güveniyor...
Banka, Kefil, Faiz, Kura, Ara Ãdeme Yok... 96 Ay Vade Ä°mkanı...
Kira Ãder Gibi Ev Sahibi Olabilmeniz İçin, Her Bütçeye Uygun Ãdeme Tabloları Sizleri Bekliyor...

palmiye

I am not sure I agree with what you say about Dawkins...but one thing is for sure: I think you nailed it when you said we need to change approach.

Thank you! Finally a positive, constructive way to approach this whole debacle.

Thank you very good information sharing

Thank you very good

We are a garage door replacement and repair shop that can take care of all your care needs for your garage door. We do everything from a quick look-over to a full installation, and we would be proud to help you out toda

I am not sure I agree with what you say about Dawkins...but one thing is for sure: I think you nailed it when you said we need to change approach.

We need to start talking about how useful the "theory of evolution" is - and how in science, if you can't use a theory, that gets thrown out of the window sooner or later. We need to focus on getting the terminology straight, and to look at the positive, useful side of our work.

Well done!

Thank you! Finally a positive, constructive way to approach this whole debacle.