Ann Molineux and Donald Ewert

President-elect of Austin Geological Society. PhD from UT, masters from Cambridge "hence my strange accent."

Reads a letter from Geol. Soc. They reiterate NAS definition of science: "The use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena, as well as the knowledge generated through this process." Asks that amendments from January be dropped. Don't blur the boundary between science and pseudoscience.

No questions.

Ewert: Insists that his work on bacteria proves that evolution is wrong. Bacteria stay bacteria, etc. Not if you ask Richard Lenski. Anyway, who is this cat? Abbie Smith explains.

Leo: "Liked how you did that"! Process of evol. vs. theory of evolution. That's a scientific weakness. Dobzhansky was uncritical and dogmatic, apparently. That must be how he revolutionized biology by helping create the modern synthesis. Ewert sez evolution contributes very little.

Leo thinks people who do research are dogmatic. He thinks there's an environment which forces ostracism. Need to show students where facts go (but seriously, don't ask Bohlin!).

Mercer gets Ewert to mention the Doctors doubting Darwin list. Teach students to question theories! I question gravity!π

More like this

You can listen along with me at: As before, board comments are in blue. Rose Banzhas, speaking for herself but also an environmental educator: Environmental education matters. As an outdoor educator, I know this matters. McLeroy keeps asking people if they're…
Charles Garner, creationist chemist from Baylor: Are there weaknesses in theories? Sez we can substitute explanations or hypotheses, but these are not interchangeable. Claims theory is being redefined, which is nonsense. Can be weaknesses. Gets into origins of life, beginning with proteins,…
Peter Johnston, parent, fmr. SBOE candidate, lawyer: Teach S&W. History of science shows that we aren't all objective. "Powers that be in science … resist change." Difficult to see outside the box. Maundering on Kuhn. Dunbar: "Mrs. Scott." It's "Dr.," dammit. What's the deal with…
White wants S&W. He insists that there are credible alternatives to evolution. Thinks that random mutation can't add mutations. Do these people not read the Index of Creationist Claims? Claims evolution is a sacrosanct icon. Leo: What do you say to people who think these things belong only…

Josh sez

Leo thinks people who do research are dogmatic.

Actually, Leo said that those who are doing science research are more open-minded; it's the ones in Academia who will not allow any doubts or questioning.

Actually, Leo said that those who are doing science research are more open-minded; it's the ones in Academia who will not allow any doubts or questioning.

Which is why we see so much ID research coming out of Amgen, Merck, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Pfizer, Squibb, etc.


Sorry, that was the image that sprang to mind...don't they realize that the Global Darwinist Conspiracy⢠would have to apply to industry as well as academia?

Great work, Josh, thanks for this live blog!

I was there and this blog poorly represents what was said. Molineux made a good point: resist changes to textbooks not provided by scientists.

On the other hand, can you refute Ewert's comment that the vast majority of material in science text books as well as research does not stand or fall on the theory of evolution. The distinction between the process and the theory should not be lost. The debate is over the power of the theory to explain the entire history of life. Ewert's point is that there is no empirical evidence for the common ancestry of all life based solely on mutation, natural selection and time. Mutation and natural selection as processes are not debated.

By Tx skeptic (not verified) on 26 Mar 2009 #permalink