CharlieM wrote:Calilasseia:
Next time someone comes here peddling the "Expelled" bollocks, we should point them at that list, and show them that the real conspiracy is taking place amongst creationists trying to expel evolution from classrooms.
Can you point to any place in any of these bills where its acceptance would prevent the teaching of evolution?
Someone obviously hasn't read the Wedge Strategy document, where the professional liars for doctrine at the Disinformation Institute clearly laid out their ground plan, and explicitly stated that their goal was to destroy valid, evidence-based science and replace it with a bastardised pastiche that was subservient to religious ideology. The "teach the controversy" mantra being peddled by these individuals is a part of that plan, namely, erect an entirely synthetic, manufactured "controversy" where none exists, peddle this lie as if it constituted established fact, and poison the minds of susceptible children against the valid science that refutes creationist lies.
Only because they don't yet think that they possess the power to do so. The moment they do, we'll very quickly see "teach the controversy" replaced by "enforce the orthodoxy".
CharlieM wrote:Evolution is still a required part of the curriculum in Texas, and the new TEKS that continue to teach evolution were eagerly adopted by the Texas State Board of Education members who were skeptics of neo-Darwinian evolution.
Only because prior case law such as the Dover Trial ruled that ID was unconstitutional, because it violated the Establishment Clause. If you think these people wouldn't drive evolution out of the classroom and replace it with mediaeval superstition if they had won the Dover Trial, you really do need to study these people and their duplicity properly.
CharlieM wrote:and:
Casey Luskin:
Leading Darwin-critics aren't seeking to introduce creationism or ID into public schools, and they would vehemently oppose attempts to ban evolution. Rather, they seek to increase coverage of evolution by teaching both the evidence for and against neo-Darwinism.
Nothing but a polished lie. Luskin was one of the people who constructed the Wedge Strategy.
The Darwin lobby wants only the pro-Darwin-only viewpoint taught.
Ah, the familiar and specious erection of the canard that teaching valid, evidence-based science instead of mythological bullshit is a "conspiracy". Whilst the peddlers of this lie hope no one will notice
their conspiring on a grand scale.
The reason that scientists seek to have the current Modern Synthesis taught in schools is because
REALITY supports that theory, and doesn't support fatuous assertions that a magic man is needed to produce the biosphere. How many of the 2,000+ scientific papers on the subject in my collection do I have to bring here in order to establish this?
They want to censor any science that challenges neo-Darwinian evolution.
This is a lie, plain and simple. Those of us who paid attention in science classes know this to be the case, because there
does not exist any science that "challenges" the Modern Synthesis. The only "challenge" that exists is a duplicitous ideological one. Of course, you could always present some scientific papers here that establish the need for a magic man, but somehow, I think you'll have a hard time doing that.
As I explained in a recent article in Christian Science Monitor, they do this by labeling opposing viewpoints as religion:
And exactly how is "I can't imagine how a natural process could achieve X, therefore no natural process can achieve X, therefore Magic Man did it"
not religion in any logically consistent universe? Because that is a summary of the IDist position.
Courts have uniformly found that creationism is a religious viewpoint and thus illegal to teach in public school science classes.
And how did those courts arrive at this? Oh, that's right, by
examining the real world evidence supporting that view. Of which the Wedge Strategy is only a part.
By branding scientific views they dislike as "religion" or "creationism," the Darwin lobby scares educators from presenting contrary evidence or posing critical questions - a subtle but effective form of censorship.
Poppycock. The simple fact remains that ID is nothing more than a political lobbying campaign on behalf of mythology. Recognising this basic fact isn't "censorship", this is merely another lie peddled by the professional stormtroopers for ideology.
The media fall prey to this tactic, resulting in articles that confuse those asking for scientific debate with those asking for the teaching of religion.
Exactly how is presenting the
observed fact that so-called "critics" of the Modern Synthesis are virtually all motivated by religious presuppositions "confusing"?
And Darwin's defenders come off looking like heroes, not censors.
That's because they aren't censors. Once again, learn this basic lesson: science classes exist to teach valid science, not mythological bullshit. There exist classes for teaching about mythology. But the ideological stormtroopers for creationist/IDist doctrine aren't satisfied with that, because relegating their blind assertions and canards to classes on comparative mythology, where they properly belong, means that pupils are taught
properly about the nonsensical nature of said blind assertions and canards. That's the last thing that Luskin
et al want.
Those who love the First Amendment should be outraged. In essence, the Darwin lobby is taking the separation of church and state - a good thing - and abusing it to promote censorship.
Bollocks. This is another manifest lie. What part of "the First amendment is there to keep ALL mythologies out of science classes, not just the pet mythology of creationists" is difficult to comprehend here?
The simple fact is that ID is nothing more than creationism in a stolen lab coat. It pretends to be "scientific" whilst offering NO real research, NO proper, rigorous empirical work, and NO properly testable theoretical underpinnings. When the assertions of these people ARE testable, it's not because the erectors thereof
want those assertions to be testable, because when those assertions are tested by
real scientists, they are found to be worthless, because
REALITY says they are worthless.
CharlieM wrote:From NCSE themselves
http://ncse.com/news/2011/01/antievolution-legislation-kentucky-006389 :
Kentucky is apparently unique in having a statute (PDF; Kentucky Revised Statutes 158.177) that authorizes teachers to teach "the theory of creation as presented in the Bible" and to "read such passages in the Bible as are deemed necessary for instruction on the theory of creation." But it is unclear whether teachers take advantage of the opportunity. The Louisville Courier-Journal (January 11, 2006) reported that in a November 2005 survey of the state's 176 school districts, none was teaching or discussing "intelligent design."
This might have something to do with the fact that those school districts don't want to waste money on Dover Trial II.
So schools in Kentucky have a statute in place which already allows them to teach creationism, but it seems they choose not too. Why then would this bill suddenly promote creationism?
Oh, you need the baby steps here? Allow me.
The game plan is simple. One, erect a specious, entirely manufactured "controversy", pretend that this "controversy" is extant amongst real scientists when it manifestly isn't, and use this to try and suggest that the vast mountains of valid scientific evidence are somehow "mistaken". Two, once this step is complete, present the so-called "alternative" as if it constitutes established fact, and fill the minds of children with ideology before they are in a position to recognise that they are being lied to. Three, once this step is complete, press the misinformed children into service in later life as yet more ideological stromtroopers for doctrine.
If you think this strategy isn't well known, then once again, you need to pay attention to what creationists are up to.
And what do the bills themselves say about teaching religion in science class?
Oh, do go on ...
Kentucky:
This section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.
This is merely an indication of the way in which creationists evolve under selection pressure. Having failed with their previous skulduggery, they're now trying the "intellectual freedom" angle, whilst their actual
intent is the exact opposite. Do you honestly think that, for example, Islamic or Hindu creation myths would get a look in if creationism was allowed in science classes? I contend that anyone entertaining this notion is hopelessly naive.
Oklahoma:
This section only protects the teaching of scientific information and specifically does not protect the promotion of any religion, religious doctrine, or religious belief.
Once again, a smokescreen to hide the true intent. Which, as I've explained already, was made manifest in the Wedge Strategy document.
CharlieM wrote:and:
Oklahoma:
The provisions of the Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act shall only protect the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or nonreligious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or nonbeliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.
Another smokescreen made necessary by the Dover Trial. Once again, creationists demonstrate that they are evolving with the environment. Interesting that their behaviour provides yet more evidence for evolutionary mechanisms, it is not?
Once again, this is merely a carefully constructed piece of high-sounding legal puffery, erected with the intent to deceive. "Intellectual freedom" and "academic freedom" are fast becoming adopted as creationist buzzphrases, the intention clearly being to appeal to that peculiar American sensibility over the word "freedom", whilst in reality paving the way for the introduction of creationist propaganda, followed by
imposition thereof once creationists think they are safe to do so.
New Mexico:
"Scientific information" may include information that coincides or harmonizes with religious tenets, but does not include information derived from religious writings, beliefs or doctrines."
Merely a slippery way of saying "feel free to push creationist ideology". See my above paragraph.
Tennessee:
This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.
Does the appearance of a similar pattern of phrasing in these bills not arouse suspicion? Once more I smell the redolent odour of "cdesign proponentsists".
CharlieM wrote:So why the insecurity?
Your synthetic attempt to paint concern over the manifest duplicity of creationists, and their well-documented ideological war against science, as "insecurity" fails miserably. The simple fact remains that creationists have been waging an ideological war against any science that fails to genuflect before mythology for at least 40 years. The body of evidence for this is overwhelming. What I am concerned about is the fact that ruthless, ideologically motivated propagandists are using their access to money and political connections to pervert and corrupt science teaching, in order to kill off any science that doesn't allow itself to be enslaved by religion. Anyone who doubts that this is the case obviously hasn't read the Wedge Strategy document, where the ideological stormtroopers themselves state this explicitly.
CharlieM wrote:What are the neo-Darwinists afraid of?
Ideological duplicity and skulduggery on the part of anti-science demagogues. Next?
CharlieM wrote:Too much close scrutiny, that's what!
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Oh please, pull the other one, it's got fucking bells on!
Who do you think are the people who have been subjecting the hypotheses of evolutionary biology to
proper scrutiny?
The evolutionary biologists themselves, that's who. Indeed, one amongst their number, J. B. S. Haldane, gave a classic example of the sort of thinking that has been a staple part of evolutionary biology and evolutionary palaeontology for decades. When asked what sort of evidence would constitute a
falsification of evolutionary theory, he tersely growled in response, in his own inimitable manner, "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian". Evolutionary biologists have known for decades what categories of real world evidence would
falsify their theories, and, far from the caricature erected by creationists, which duplicitously defames those scientists by suggesting they are "suppressing" any such evidence,
those scientists have gone looking for it themselves. Not least because, any real scientist who
does alight upon a real world evidential falsification of evolutionary theory is going to be headline news overnight. The science journals are going to be falling over themselves in the rush to print his findings first. Falsifying an extant paradigm, or establishing the validity of a new paradigm, is the stuff that Nobel Prizes are made of. Anyone who doesn't understand this elementary concept really hasn't paid attention in science classes.
If you want examples of how this elementary concept applies for real, allow me to present:
[1] Dr Barry Marshall. Barry Marshall presented the theory that stomach ulcers were caused by a bacterium,
Helicobacter pylori, and in doing so directly confronted the conventional wisdom of surgeons. Result? Dr Marshall
received the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 2005. His article in the
Medical Journal of Australia in which he presented his thesis is
one of the most cited articles in that journal's history.
[2] Stanley Prusiner. Stanley Prusiner hypothesised that it was possible for proteins to exist that were capable of replicating without a nucleic acid intermediary, in direct contradiction of what used to be termed "the central dogma of molecular biology". Result? He
received the Albert Lasker Award for Basic Medical Research in 1994, and the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 1997. Moreover, he not only established that such proteins existed, but
established that they were the cause of serious neurodegenerative disease in mammals including humans.
[3] Lynn Margulis. Lynn Margulis hypothesised that eukaryotic cells evolved as a result of the development of a mutualist relationship between ancestral prokaryotes (the endosymbiont hypothesis). Result? Her theory is now
a standard part of mainstream science, and she was
awarded the National Medal of Science in the USA in 1999. The Library of Congress has announced that it will permanently archive her papers, she was awarded the Proctor Prize For Scientific Achievement in 1999, and has been inducted into the World Academy of Art And Science. Incidentally, she spent 30 years achieving this end result, which gives an indication of how hard she laboured at the task.
The reasons that the careers of these people flourished, and that two of them won Nobel Prizes?
Simple. They
engaged in genuine scientific research. They
pursued rigorous methodologies. They rolled up their sleeves, did the hard work, provided the
evidence that convinced other scientists that they were right, and in doing so
advanced scientific progress.
What characterises the above individuals is the following:
[1] They
asked difficult questions, including questions that were controversial in their respective fields at the time;
[2] They
laboured diligently to provide the evidence from observational reality to support their hypotheses;
[3] They
demonstrated that the evidence they presented was capable of surviving the most intense critical scrutiny that other scientists could bring to bear,
including scientists who opposed their ideas.
Creationists and IDists want to bypass all of this. They want their unsupported assertions to be granted special privileges and treated as if they were rigorously established results from observational reality, when they are
nothing of the sort. Well science doesn't hand out privileges like that to people who don't earn them. So, the answer is simple. Creationists and IDists can get off their backsides, engage in
real research, devise
testable hypotheses and establish that those hypotheses are
evidentially supported. Because if they don't do that, they are not engaging in genuine scientific activity and their ideas do not deserve to be called "scientific", no matter how much they dress those ideas up in a stolen lab coat.
CharlieM wrote:Virtually everyone agrees that random mutations and natural selection are observed facts. What is being more and more questioned is the capability of these mechanisms to accomplish what is being asked of them.
Oh really? And which
actual scientific papers erect these questions, may I ask? Only in the 2,000 or so scientific papers I have in my collection, what I keep seeing is
empirical demonstrations that mutation plus selection can deliver the goods. How many of these do you want me to bring here?
Indeed, this brings me neatly onto another of those inconvenient
facts that creationists hope no one will notice, namely that if creationist assertions were supported by
REALITY, then
scientists would have integrated them into their theories, and creationist assertions would be part of mainstream science. The reason they are NOT part of mainstream science is because
REALITY SAYS THAT CREATIONIST ASSERTIONS ARE WRONG. It's that simple. Only the ideological stormtroopers for doctrine won't learn to live with this.
CharlieM wrote:Let school kids have the facts and give them the credit of making their own minds up about what to believe or not to believe.
Excuse me, but
the reason children are in school in the first place is in order to learn how to do this. Because this is a skill that requires assiduous cultivation. Bombarding them with propaganda for an ideology
before they have learned to distinguish evidentially supported postulates from unsupported blind assertions does NOT achieve the goal of cultivating proper critical thinking. Plus, evolution is NOT a matter of "belief", this is merely another creationist lie, and we KNOW it is another creationist lie, courtesy of the
vast mountains of real world evidence supporting evolutionary hypotheses, which is the reason why those hypotheses have become elevated to the status of a
theory. I suggest you master this elementary concept quickly.
by 
