Calif. School Cancels ‘Intelligent Design’ Class
Posted on January 18, 2006
Previously I reported:
A rural high school teaching a religion-based alternative to evolution was sued Tuesday by a group of parents who said the class should be stopped because it violates the U.S. Constitution.
Frazier Mountain High School in Lebec violated the separation of church and state while attempting to legitimize the theory of “intelligent design” by introducing it as philosophy taught by a minister’s wife, according to the U.S. District Court suit filed by parents of 13 students.
Well, they canceled the class with extreme prejudice:
In the federal court settlement, the district agreed to halt the course at Frazier Mountain High next week and said it would never again offer a “course that promotes or endorses creationism, creation science or intelligent design.”
“This sends a strong signal to school districts across the country that they cannot promote creationism or intelligent design as an alternative to evolution, whether they do so in a science class or a humanities class,” said Ayesha N. Khan, legal director for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which represented the parents.
In a landmark lawsuit, Americans United successfully blocked the Dover, Pa., school system last month from teaching intelligent design alongside evolution in high school biology classes. U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is religion masquerading as science.
However, some activists contended that Jones’ ruling opened the door to teaching intelligent design in philosophy or religion classes.
The settlement in the El Tejon school district was announced just before a judge was scheduled to hold a hearing on whether to halt the class midway through the monthlong winter term.
All five of the cash-strapped district’s trustees voted to settle the potentially expensive case, said Pete Carton, the district’s attorney. The class started Jan. 3 with 15 students.
El Tejon Superintendent John Wight said the subject was proper for a philosophy class. But Americans United argued the course relied almost exclusively on videos that presented religious theories as scientific ones.
District officials were encouraged to settle by the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank that supports intelligent design and which had filed a court brief in favor of the Dover school board.
The El Tejon class “was misconceived,” said John West, a senior fellow at the institute. “It was almost all about Biblical creationism, not intelligent design.”
Similar battles over intelligent design are being fought in Georgia and Kansas.
As I said in the comment section, I do not have a problem teaching the Bible or creationism in a philosophy, or religion, class in public school. As long as it is one of the elective courses who cares. Frankly most elective classes are in the who cares category to me anyway, so I don’t see the big deal; except for Christianity-phobes. Yeah, I figured we needed another phobia term tossed around, because it sure seems like people are deathly afraid of their children being exposed to Christianity. Now if they felt and acted this way towards homosexuality they would be called a homo-phobe, so why not a Christianity-phobe?
Well, for all you Christians out there, the message is clear, keep your Christianity to your self and behind closed doors where it belongs. However, homosexuals and transsexuals you can do whatever you like, and please teach our children all about your life choices; what a country.
Cross Posted by The Uncooperative Blogger
» Filed Under Church And State, News
Trackback URL
Comments
29 Responses to “Calif. School Cancels ‘Intelligent Design’ Class”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
It was never said by the U.S. Supreme Court that Creation or Intelligent Design can’t be taught in public school, only it couldn’t be taught as a scientific alternative. No law is broken by teaching Creation in school.
“Well, for all you Christians out there, the message is clear, keep your Christianity to your self and behind closed doors where it belongs. However, homosexuals and transsexuals you can do whatever you like, and please teach our children all about your life choices; what a country”
Great point. The bigotry is the other way around.
I think this bigotry goes against all people of faith and believe in G-d. This is Godaphobia, if we want to take this farther. Being Jewish, this is an affront to me too. The public school system in America is really going to the dogs.
-OC
I am a closet believer. I want to “come out” but I am afraid of what my family will say and what whould happen to me on my job. My fear of being outed is great. I go to services in a “believer” area where there are others who share my orientation. We are afraid to even be seen together. We have different orientations- cross bearers, stars of David, followers of the Tao, etc.
Some of our behavior is outlandish, eating the body of Christ for example.
If you think the above is a parody; replacing faith with gays, you are only partially right. It is actually a modern version of what religious people- Christians and Jews endured during the pagan Roman Empire.
Help rebuild New Orleans with TDL, Ray Nagin, and Homer Simpson!
Join us below:
http://dicklist.blogspot.com
Why don’t any of you actually read about the case before launching into another whining session? Do you not understand that this was to be a course advocating for six-day creation, not “intelligent design” (which contains no theories, hypotheses or data anyway and can therefore not be taught as either science or philosophy)? This is ILLEGAL.
I’ll say it one more time: ILLEGAL.
Even the lying nutbags at the Discovery Institute have distanced itself from this failed venture, hastening to point out that ID and creationism aren’t the same thing. They are, but that’s a lecture for another time and place — the point is that even ID advocates acknowledged that this class was all about advocating (not merely discussing, ADVOCATING) creationism.
Your comparison to homosexuality is as uninformed as most of the other things you’ve posted on this and other subjects. If a school were attempting to turn all its students into gays (or all of the gay ones into straights, for that matter), the comparison might stand. Instead, you’ve again proven that you shoot from the hip and with such a strong pro-Jesus bias that it’s impossible not to laugh and cray at the same time when digesting your torturous morsels.
Every time you make a post like this, it re-establishes that none of the “authors” here has an ounce of credibility. You’re a bunch of reactionaries who do no research and simply let fly at the drop of a Wingnut Daily article or dumb utterance from Bill “sexual-harassment king” O’Reilly. If you expect people to pay attention to your incessantr ranting about the ACLU, you should start by striving for accuracy. That’s earnest advice, by the way, and you need it.
Haldol,
Put away your talking points and actually read the blog before launching into nonsense.
I clearly said I don’t care if they were teaching the Bible and creationism in a philosophy or religious class in public school, as long as it was an elective.
It is not illegal to teach the bible, Christianity, Buddhism, or any other religion in public schools. It all depends on the context and forum; so you are wrong.
Rich,
Put up the canned response to promote your site. I never even mentioned the ACLU. The ACLU does end up defending Christians when it suits them, but do not get confused; dig deeper.
I cannot believe I have to spend so much time defending something I don’t believe in personally; Christianity. But, someone has to protect true religious freedom in this country. What is being done to Christians in this country is criminal and disgusting.
Well, the war is on and we are not going away.
I also understand although they are hammering Christianity right now, it will not end with Christianity if they are successful. So all you Jewish people, Muslims, Deists, Buddhists, Hindus etc. better get involved because you are next.
There is no room for any belief in God or Religion in a Secular Communist world.
Teaching ID or Creation is not illegal. They are the same thing to be sure, and teaching them in a science class is one thing. But there is no law and no judicial ruling that states it can’t be taught at all.
“You’re a bunch of reactionaries who do no research”
The Constitution counts as research. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits ID or Creation being taught in school. The only un-Constiutional thing about this debate is public school itself.
The comparison to gays is actually a fair point, as many public schools push to force a gay-tolerance class on those that do not believe the lifestyle is appropriate. There is no religious tolerance class, which students could learn to accept people of other faiths. Free speech does not stop at public school doors, and students can legally be as outspoken about their Christian beliefs (or should be) as homosexuals can (or should be) about their preference. Many schools (like Altoona High) prohibit wearing Jesus t-shirts of any kind, and Bibles in school, even if read on a free lunch period. But gay pride t-shirts, and “I Hate God” rock and roll t-shirts, are just fine and acceptable.
” If you expect people to pay attention to your incessantr ranting about the ACLU,”
They have your full attention. You post here regularly, no matter your motives. Even if you disagree with Jay, you’re giving him ratings and page views.
I felt I should clarify something right quick:
While I openly condemn the practice of homosexuality, and will continue to do so, I in no way condone the mistreatment, harassment, or cruelty to homosexuality. The Biblical view as I read it, for those that care, is that homosexuality, or any other sin, results in damnation, or is even the issue. This issue is Jesus Christ first. I’ve seen homosexuals convert to Christianity and cease to be homosexuals, but Christ had forgiven them first. Too often Christians demand behavior before salvation, and that is totally un-Scriptural. Thanks for listening to the sermon. Make all checks paybable to “Rev. Tim High, Blogevangelist Enterprises.” God loves a cheerful giver.(kidding)
Evidently you guys are just going to try and shout over the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard ruling and hope no one will notice.
It is ILLEGAL to advocate for creationism in public school, period. It doesn’t matter whether the class in question is biology, philosophy, French or phys ed; it’s been ruled unconstitutional. You may feel that this is a bad decision; so be it. But to argue that what the El Tejon teacher had in mind was not ILLEGAL is the height of ignorance.
Yes, it would be legal to teach ABOUT creationism, ID, Buddhism or what have you. I understand this very well, thanks. But this is not what the El Tejon teacher proposed, and the difference is not subtle. If you believe that it is, you either cannot read or haven’t looked into the particulars of the case. I suspect it is chiefly the latter, which, since I have now pointed out what the case involves, is inexcusable. But am certain that anyone who looks at this case and explodes with a line of crap like “What is being done to Christians in this country is criminal and disgusting” will continue to refuse to participate sensibly in this discussion, so I will not expect any retractions.
I suggest you go back and re-read your case law. This case involves the state government mandating the teaching of Creationism when Evolution is taught. The key differences are that the State passed a LAW requiring the teaching of Creationism, and it was being taught side by side with evolution. Something I have no problem with actually, since teaching one “belief” side by side with another “belief” seems only even handed. However, it does not apply in this case, and it does not say it is ILLEGAL to teach creationism in public school.
Wow, Haldol, you surprise me with your ignorance and hostility. First, yes there is a difference between Intelligent Design and Creationism. Creationism is specifically Christian, well, or Jewish or Muslim (since Genesis is basically the same in all three religions), it is specifically based upon events described in the Bible, such as the Flood. Intelligent Design makes no mention of God, nor of any religion, so teaching it does not recognize an establishment of religion any more than the predominantly atheist evolution. It is ILLEGAL to deny people the free excess of religion. Read the WHOLE Constitution.
And you seem to find the point of evolution being widely accepted as valid as the “unconstitutional” nature of teaching ID. It is thoroughly totalitarian to force any belief on anyone, including forcing to teach it to them without any alternative regardless of the factual merits of either, and it is equally totalitarian to refuse to teach a reasonable alternative to a flawed theory. It is even more totalitarian to teach an unreliable and illogical theory instead of one that a majority of Americans believe and has much more evidence than evolution in all intellectual honesty.
I’ll jump right into the two-faced nature of evolution (flip-flopping from how rare beneficial mutations are and it takes millions of years, though five minutes later making unfounded claims that defy their “logic”) and a few things Darwinism cannot explain.
First (these all in no particular order), the circulatory system. I have not seen a single explanation as to how blood evolved. What mutation knocked around the DNA of some animal and somehow turned something into blood? And what did it do at first? And how was more of it produced? Mutations have to alter something that is already there. So, what is it that was mutated into blood? And why was it unneeded so it could be freely mutated into something that would be unnecessary until many more mutations came about? Then the question of veins arise. As a tube, a vein needs to be 100% complete for it to function. And as such, after the first supposed mutation to create something similar to a vein, why would natural selection favor something useless when it is supposed to filter out harmful and unnecessary traits? And the circulatory system is nothing without a heart. So when did the heart evolve? What mutation could create the heart, and from what? I mean, when trying to explanation the evolution of lizards to birds, at least lizards have leg bones that somehow evolve into wing bones. So what is it that was then mutated into a heart? And how would that beneficial without blood and veins? You cannot almost have a circulatory system, just like you cannot almost be able to fly or almost be able to breathe on land.
The “evolution” of the whale is one of my favorites. I’ve heard two stories: a black wolf that liked fish and a cow that, well, I’ve heard conflicting reasons for the marine evolution of the cow (including, albeit widely discouraged by evolutionists to be taught, that the cow needed to cross a river). Since I know the most about the wolf evolution, I’ll elaborate on that fable. According to evolutionists, a black wolf lived near the coast and went down to find there was lots of fish that no other land predator was going after, so the wolf had free reign to eat however much he wanted. The myth goes on to say because he ate more he had more descendants, and his descendants went further on into the water each generation, until eventually their fur turned into blubber and their noses were moved on top of their heads so as to not drown.
This is a perfect example of the two-faced nature of evolution. When faced with how science proves that their theories on how an animal evolves are practically impossible, they reason “Well, mutations are rare, and random. It takes thousands of years for one beneficial mutation to show up, and even then the success rate is low. And they start out minor.” When an evolutionist says something like that, they are refuting their wild claims of the major problems for the theory, such as the origin of the whale. Then they’ll screech that they’re so logical “It makes perfect sense! A wolf went down to the coast, liked fish, and turned into a whale!”
If a wolf did go down to the shore and found fish, who says it would be able to eat fish? Or swim at all even to get fish from the most shallow of waters? You have to evolve everything. And it would take millions and millions of years for even the most minor changes to occur, such as the nose turning into a blowhole, but to turn into a whale?! Nonsense! The wolves would have to spend hundreds of millions of years there, eating fish, with random mutations (if all mutations are random, then you cannot actually evolve anything you need, and likewise technically there is no environmental pressure) making minor changes, minor changes that don’t equal big changes. And most of these changes would be harmful or at least unnecessary until they reached their full potential, and as such, eliminated by natural selection. For example, turning the fur into whatever kind of skin a whale has and then all that blubber underneath. Even if a pack of wolves spends half of their lifetime in the water, the mutations are still random, and so the odds of evolving more water-friendly skin is practically impossible. And then, what mutation adds all that blubber? Once again, no matter how major or minor a mutation is, it still has to alter something that already exists and is thus (if the rationale of Darwinism is to be respected) fully functioning. With no explanation for how the blubber would get there, or what the “stuff” was before it became blubber, there is still the un-addressed issue of how having such a radically different body would help the black wolves until they could swim. Why, they’d most certainly all die before they could swim from all these changes!
Another example is the fundamental principles of evolution: the simple over the complex (less going on, less can go wrong) and asexuality over two genders that need to be perfectly in synch. The most complex forms of life are the most varied, while the most simple life forms are the least varied. Considering more advanced creatures should be harder to come by, there should be significantly less varieties, but the opposite is true. And considering “simple” life has basically been out of the loop of all these fancy new organs and traits that more evolved creatures have, they should actually be more varied (even if less advanced). However, the opposite is true. “Simple” life forms such as germs and bacteria are everywhere on earth, and if the principles of evolution and Darwin hold any ground, they should be extremely varied and adapt to their environments. However, germs and bacteria are not that different from those at the other end of the world, and, therefore logically, almost frozen in time in the evolutionary tree if you still fanatically hold true to the religion of Darwinism.
What mutation caused the first two genders? There is no explanation how it happened or what would be changed by the mutation. So, even if two somewhat different organisms developed, why would they be different genders? And how would they be able to reproduce together? Let alone have their instincts prevalent enough to make that arguably the main focus of all living things (again, throughout all of this fable theory, there are no explanations how instincts develop perfectly suited for the new traits). Not only do the two new genders have to be able to reproduce together, but whatever primeval form of the egg and whatever substance then evolved that fertilizes it must be drawn to one another and be able to form whatever early form of embryo has evolved. Organisms do not have millions of years to evolve how to reproduce, one generation and they’re all dead. So, what has made the gestation so perfect? It by no means has the time to evolve, as a mutation altering how the fetus works and is born will kill the infant creature. Then the proto-female has to be able to carry and then give birth to the babies and then care for them. With all of these 100% necessary requirements, the evolution of genders and reproduction are in all intellectual honesty impossible.
“Frankly most elective classes are in the who cares category to me anyway, so I don’t see the big deal;”
Exactly the sort of person that we should listen to on education policy matters!
“Wow, Haldol, you surprise me with your ignorance…yes there is a difference between Intelligent Design and Creationism…Intelligent Design makes no mention of God…”
Like most here, you freely label others “ignorant” while demonstrating absolutely no understanding of the topic at hand. None at all.
That ID was established to be nothing more than creationism was central to Judge Jones’ decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover. During the trial, it was discovered, among other things, that the flagship ID “textbook,” “Of Pandas and People,” was nothing more than an old creation book in which explicit references to God and creation were replaced by references to intelligent design and designers.
http://www.pennlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news/1128609607294300.xml?pennnews&coll=1
In fact, one edition included this amusing typo:
“cdesign proponentsists”
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/missing_link_cd.html
Therefore, if you think that ID and creationism are distnct, you are either hopelessly gullible or are just another shill for Jesus, although the latter condition follows in some cases from the former.
“It is thoroughly totalitarian to force any belief on anyone…”
One small problem: Evolution is accepted as fact by all credible biologists and stands as the only viable explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. If you think it’s totalitarian to teach it in biology, you must also feel that disallowing alternatives to “2 + 2 = 4″ in math constitues the unfair forcing of a single view on children.
The fact that *you* and religious zealots don’t accept evolution is of no epistemological consequence. That’s your problem, not science’s.
Finally, I don’t know where you stole that bumbling opinion piece regarding evolution from, but it’s so laden with misunderstandings of basic biology and beliefs falsely attributed to scientists that there’s really no way to address it (and this isn’t the place for a science discussion anyway, nor is one required to establish your ignorance). As an example, asking “what is it that was mutated into blood?” is as useful as noting the claim that blue and yellow combine to form green and asking, “Why doesn’t mixing blueberry ice cream and lemon sherbet produce pistachio ice cream?” And writing “the most simple life forms are the least varied” is betond stupid (apparently you have no idea of the number of bacterial species out there. I’ll give you a hint: It’s huge).
Your comment will be deleted anyway as soon as the moderators discover that you did not post a vlid link to a blog. I admit I need to update mine, but I will do this soon.
“Finally, I don’t know where you stole that bumbling opinion piece regarding evolution from, but it’s so laden with misunderstandings of basic biology and beliefs falsely attributed to scientists that there’s really no way to address it (and this isn’t the place for a science discussion anyway, nor is one required to establish your ignorance).”
Shouldn’t step up to the plate if you’re not ready to swing.
“One small problem: Evolution is accepted as fact by all credible biologists and stands as the only viable explanation for the diversity of life on Earth”
Since you seem intent still on insulting Christians for having common sense in understanding that all this life is not one big accident, I’ll ask you again for the source on the above statement, that all biologists accept evolution as fact. I say ALL, because you said before that 99.99% of the science community back you up on evolution. Now you are saying all CREDIBLE BIOLOGISTS. I see we narrowed the criteria down a bit. Basically, whoever has a website that supports your opinion.
Traditional ID is yes, just a political tool for teaching Creationism. However, it is entirely possible to teach Intelligent Design without any mention of any God, though it is not nearly as complete or valid as Creationism (as it makes specific references to the age of the earth, the Flood, etc.). ID can only expose flaws in alternative theories, it cannot create its own like Creationism can. So as long as you don’t mentioned Noah’s flood, though you can mention evidence of a global flood, you aren’t specifically teaching any religious belief.
“One small problem: Evolution is accepted as fact by all credible biologists and stands as the only viable explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. If you think it’s totalitarian to teach it in biology, you must also feel that disallowing alternatives to “2 + 2 = 4? in math constitues the unfair forcing of a single view on children.”
First, numbers are numbers. You cannot pose any alternative for what 2 + 2 is. It is 4. Numbers are not open to interpretation, that is an invalid analogy. Viable explanation for the variety of life on earth? You have proven yourself to be thoroughly ignorant of both sides of the argument. First, an explanation is not automatically a viable theory. Macroevolution, major changes such as the appearance of new organs and for example changing from a lizard to a bird, has been disproven beyond a reasonable through overwhelming evidence. Microevolution and natural selection are the explanations for the variety of animals, and explain how minor changes occur and specialize creatures to specific environments. Microevolution and natural selection are also apart of the Flood theory, well, not directly, but involving the world immediately after the Flood and how all the different species appeared from ancestor kinds. Darwinism is not the only explanation for the variety of life forms on earth, there are several other theories that try to explain it. Darwinism includes macroevolution. The variety of life forms has nothing to do with the origin of them or how they all come from a common ancestor.
As for this “credible” scientist thing. What do you define as credible? You mean scientists who agree with you. Credibility has nothing to do with matters of opinion. Evolutionists do not make up such an overwhelming majority of the “scientific community”, and furthermore this scientific community is basically a clique. Creationists are bullied outcasts. So, if you say that a majority of scientists agree with you, then remember that a majority of scientists used to be Creationists. And when you say that all credible scientists are evolutionists, remember that those are only those that YOU find credible and that OTHER EVOLUTIONISTS find credible. Would you ever willingly admit that a Creationist has made good points or is a good scientists? Of course you wouldn’t it.
You seem to have rather conviently dismissed my arguments that prove how logically contradictory evolution with a few tired clichés of words. Your debate tactics are suspiciously similar to liberals. You use a few veiled personal attacks and ignore all arguments against you. Either confront the issues or don’t make wild claims.
“Your comment will be deleted anyway as soon as the moderators discover that you did not post a vlid link to a blog. I admit I need to update mine, but I will do this soon.”
A blog? You must be using some different terminology. But regardless of the context of the word blog, why does each posted comment have to have a link to something? And what would you want a link to?
apostle:
“Since you seem intent still on insulting Christians for having common sense in understanding that all this life is not one big accident…”
This is exactly what I mean by gross misconceptions (evolution doesn’t involve anything resembling “one big accident”) and serves as an example of why I won’t go into great detail — the knowledge level of the commenters here simply doesn’t lend itself to in-depth or even superficial science discussions.
If were a simple matter of stating facts, that would be one thing, but you people don’t have the requisite background to even think scientifically. Call me condescending, but I do this for a living, and trust me, you have not a sliver of a clue what you’re even arguing about, or against. That is not a personality judgment, it’s a fact, just as the admission that I am 100% ignorant when it comes so Sanskrit is a fact.
Kuiper:
“What do you define as credible? You mean scientists who agree with you.”
It was only a matter of time before you produced this butt-morsel, which apostle and others have excreted previously. Anyone deserving of the title of “scientist” accepts evolution because it is literally impossible to conduct meaningful research in biology without acknowledging, and operating in accordance, with its central tenets. That is also a fact, and if you contest it, I expect to see your credentials and reasons for arguing.
“Evolutionists do not make up such an overwhelming majority of the ’scientific community’”
Whether this is a bald-faced lie or cataclysmic ignorance, I can’t decide.
Name one scientist who has published a peer-reviewed paper i a credible journal that throws evoluton into question. You can’t; they don’t exist, which is the basis for the 99.99%/”all” claim apostle is so doggedly intent on getting me to “prove.”
“…and furthermore this scientific community is basically a clique. Creationists are bullied outcasts.”
Yes, that must be it. It couldn’t be that the creationists can’t get published because they’re full of dung; it must be that the “clique” refuses to acknowledge their eminently worthy ideas. Keep mumbling that over and over and maybe it’ll come true, and your goofy reversal of cause and effect will actually come to fruition.
“And when you say that all credible scientists are evolutionists, remember that those are only those that YOU find credible and that OTHER EVOLUTIONISTS find credible.”
No, genius. I don’t make up the numbers, I just report them. If you survey every biology faculty member in the nation employed by an accredited college you will find fewer than 5 who think evolution is a hoax. The burden isn’t on me to produce survey results affirming this because such surveys are trivial and because you are blathering out of your bunghole.
“Would you ever willingly admit that a Creationist has made good points or is a good scientists? Of course you wouldn’t it.”
Irrelevant, of course, but sure I would. But creationists obviously aren’t going to make any sound scientific points when it comes to evolution.
The bottom line is that the post that inspired this string of comments was misinformed. You guys know this and it upsets you, so you’re hammering away — equally stupidly — at issues that aren’t germane to the California case at all. What a laughingstock this site is; that’s why I keep coming back, I’ve decided. No one can leave here feeling badly about himself after seeing just how unbelieveably ramshackle some folks’ intellects are.
Haldol,
I will bottom line it for you, Human evolution has NEVER been proven; period. Get over yourself, and realize you need to learn more than you think you know.
“This is exactly what I mean by gross misconceptions (evolution doesn’t involve anything resembling “one big accident”) and serves as an example of why I won’t go into great detail — the knowledge level of the commenters here simply doesn’t lend itself to in-depth or even superficial science discussions.”
In other words, you can’t prove it.
“This is exactly what I mean by gross misconceptions (evolution doesn’t involve anything resembling “one big accident”)”
I never said evolution did. There is no misconception. YOU don’t believe in a Creator, therefore, life in your world is a big accident, science or no.
“Call me condescending, but I do this for a living, and trust me, you have not a sliver of a clue what you’re even arguing about”
Sure we’ll trust you. You offer no proof and avoid it by stating that its over our heads. I’ve heard arguments from scientists whose credentials I have actually seen, and they were able to carry a discussion with me fine. Since you can’t, we can only assume you’re trolling and really have no proof to back up your claims.
“It was only a matter of time before you produced this butt-morsel, which apostle and others have excreted previously.”
Because you keep dodging it, like you did one more time.
“It couldn’t be that the creationists can’t get published because they’re full of dung; it must be that the “clique” refuses to acknowledge their eminently worthy ideas.”
Exactly.
“No, genius. I don’t make up the numbers, I just report them.”
Except you didn’t report them genius.
“The burden isn’t on me to produce survey results affirming this because such surveys are trivial and because you are blathering out of your bunghole.”
Yes it is. You made the claim, and feel you have a handle on the opinion of all the science realm. Perhaps you should take a class in debating. When you present something as fact, especially in the sarcastic, character insulting way you do, it is on you to provide proof.
” The bottom line is that the post that inspired this string of comments was misinformed. You guys know this and it upsets you, so you’re hammering away”
And now Mr. Wizard, who doesn’t believe in the supernatural, claims to be able to read our minds. Let me educate you: The post is not misinformed, and the intent of ID is irrelevant. Teaching this alternative to evolution is not illegal because it does not mention a specific god, and even if it did, if one follows the Constitution the way it was written, it wouldn’t matter anyway.
“No one can leave here feeling badly about himself after seeing just how unbelieveably ramshackle some folks’ intellects are.”
But you do. You keep coming back to try and anger people further because it hurts your feelings that everyone on this site knows how full of crap what you do for a living is. The fact that you have not been able to prove a shred of your argument to anyone is because you can’t, though you try and cover it up by claiming we are too stupid to understand it. Great tactic. That way you can say what you want and know one can or will take you seriously. Certified nutcases have that same luxury.
Where’s My Haldol;
Ifyou can’t find it, you better get a new scrip soon. You are starting to discombobulate.
This is both hilarious and sad.
“I will bottom line it for you, Human evolution has NEVER been proven; period. Get over yourself, and realize you need to learn more than you think you know.”
Right. You and your eighth-grade education and absent biology background will just ejaculate declarative statements and wave your hands real fast, and that huge body of knowledge accumulated by thousands of scientists all over the world, and reproduced and verified countless times, will just magically disappear.
In that case, we might as well allow alternatives to the germ therory of disease, gravity, because yes, evolution is on scientific and evidentiary ground just as solid as that supporting these concepts. The original post is sheer fiction, and “Uncooperative Blogger” is a slack-jawed moron. That’s okay, because justice prevailed in El Tejon.
As I said, I’m not here to give science lessons to people who not only can’t understand them but wouldn’t accept them if they could. I’ll go so far as to waste time pointing out where you guys are wrong (a full-time job in itself), but I lack the power and the desire to pull a bunch of benighted cretins out of the 14th century and into the present one.
Reality stands, apostle, whether you accept it or not. You can keep praying to your imaginary pal in the sky and jamming your fingers in your ears when your betters say things you’d rather not hear, but maybe you should ask yourself why it is that evolution is accepted by those with an education who are actually exposed to and utilize it on a reguar basis. Oh yeah, that’s right — a corrupt atheist agenda, even among theistic evolutionists.
Oooo, I hit a nerve, The FACT that Human Evolution has never been proven can be pointed out by “The Missing Link.” See, it is missing, so the chain of human evolution from apes cannot be proven, and in science that usually means it is not true.
As to my education sir, I was in the Medical field and have an extensive education in biology and Human Anatomy.
Many scientists have come forward and stated that the more they tried to prove that God does not exist, the more they believed he did; he, She, it, a higher power.
“reproduced and verified countless times, will just magically disappear.”
So reproduce some.
”
As I said, I’m not here to give science lessons to people who not only can’t understand them but wouldn’t accept them if they could. I’ll go so far as to waste time pointing out where you guys are wrong (a full-time job in itself), but I lack the power and the desire to pull a bunch of benighted cretins out of the 14th century and into the present one”
Translation: Haldol doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and has found himself unable to prove his ridiculous claims. Insults are his smoke screens to hide his illegitmacy.
“ask yourself why it is that evolution is accepted by those with an education who are actually exposed to and utilize it on a reguar basis”
They’re not. You should ask yourself why evolution is taught as a fact in every public school in America, and why the overwhelming majority of citizens in this country still claim their “skygod.” I get it, the majority of Americans are not as smart as you. Got it.
I love it. You bottom-feeders continually demand evidence, and when it’s given (as with the links and articles at sites like talkorigins.org and the facts surrounding the El Tejon case) you just dismiss it or don’t read it, yet expect me to continue. Not only that, many of the things you’re demanding evidence for aren’t even posited by biologists in the first place. And rather than confront the scientific realities at issue here, you’re reduced to demanding a course for my claim that biologists who actually practice biology “believe in” evolution. Do I need to cite a source for my claim that 99.99% of sane physicists believe in the concepts of mass, force and acceleration?
“The FACT that Human Evolution has never been proven can be pointed out by ‘The Missing Link.’ See, it is missing, so the chain of human evolution from apes cannot be proven, and in science that usually means it is not true.”
You are dumber than I previously believed, but this burst of foolishness serves to strengthen my point. The validity of evolution does not rest in any way on the existence of a “missing link” — that’s a construct dreamed up by creo-tards so they can more easily delude themselves into believing their masturbating to Genesis is actually useful or valid. Find me an article in which an evolutionary biologist notes that the absence of a “missing link” poses a problem for natural selection, common descent or any of the other central tenets of evolution.
Perhaps by “missing link” you mean “transitional fossil. If you are claiming none of these exist, I suggest you visit a neurologist.
I’ll use a Wikipedia entry rather than a more scholarly excerpt, which would only addle you and see you screeching about “biased” sites anyway.
“It is commonly stated by anti-evolutionists that there are no known transitional fossils. According to evolutionary scientists, this position is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of what represents a transitional feature. A common creationist argument is that no fossils are found with partially functional features. It is entirely plausible, however, that a complex feature with one function can adapt a wholly different function through evolution. The precursor to e.g. a wing, might originally have only been meant for gliding, trapping flying prey, and/or mating display. Nowadays, wings can still have all of these functions, but they are also used in active flight.
“Although transitional fossils elucidate the evolutionary transition of one life-form to another, they only exemplify snapshots of this process. Due the special circumstances required for preservation of living beings, only a small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be discovered. Thus, the transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, but it will never be known in detail. However, progressing research and discovery managed to fill in several gaps and continues to do so.”
Let me know if the big words are a problem.
“As to my education sir, I was in the Medical field and have an extensive education in biology and Human Anatomy.”
Good one!
“Many scientists have come forward and stated that the more they tried to prove that God does not exist, the more they believed he did; he, She, it, a higher power.”
More claptrap. Scientists don’t set out to prove that gods or anything else do not exist, because unlike you, scientists actually understand that proving the nonexistence of something is a logical impossibility. Besides, scientists aren’t invested in doing away with gods (and I see you ignored what I wrote about theistic evolutionists — no suprise there) — that’s just the lie that the backward and fearful fundagelicals of the U.S. cling to so as to more easily ignore facts. If they can paint scientists as driven by some evil agenda, they can more readily swallow the moronic notion that scientists are inherently anti-god. Gods have nothing to do with evolution, fer or agin.
If you doltfolk toss one more red herring into this discussion, I don’t think there will be any left in the waters of Earth.
Once again: You don’t understand the process of science, your brains don’t work like those of normal humans, your religious programming has rendered you senseless in most meaningful respects, and your bloviating about the El Tejon case is, just like Jay’s, rooted in a completely absent understanding of the facts of the case.
apostle, I believe that were I as stupid and brainwashed as you are and could somehow be made aware of this information, I would have to off or at least castrate myself. You don’t stand a chance in this world.
This site is a train wreck of misguided assumptions, staunch resistance to various realities, and proud ignorance. What a howl! My educated friends are somewhat appalled at the number of Americans who are as lamebrained as you troglodytes, but they see the humor in it as well, as do I. I’ll have to blog about it shortly.
Haldol,
Read will you, I have ALWAYS been discussing Human Evolution, and the missing link is a real problem when stating, as it does, that we evolved from Apes. No one is denying that species evolve to some extent, based on environment and certain traits yielding higher survival. Evolution in itself is not contrary to Creationism or the belief in a higher power being involved.
“I have ALWAYS been discussing Human Evolution, and the missing link is a real problem when stating, as it does, that we evolved from Apes.”
That’s not precisely what biologists believe. Humans and two kinds of apes (chimpanzees and bonobos, which are very similar to one another) share a common ancestor, with the divergence believed to have occurred about 6 or 7 million years ago.
You keep mentioning “THE missing link,” as if there is one set of fossilized remains that is currently lacking, but has the power to tie everything neatly together. You have to understand that evolution is not predicted on the existance of a certain number of fossils, or, for that matter, any fossils (these can rule in or rule out existing ideas, but generally don’t offer new ones). Work in modern molecular genetics has led to a vastly increased understanding of organism’s ancestral relationships, and embryology has started doing the same thing. It is noteworthy that the fundamintal principles set forth 150+ years ago by Charles Darwin have only been reinforced, not refuted. (He had some of the details askew, he didn’t even know about mechanisms of inheritance or of course DNA itself.)
It is for these reasons I find it odd when rabid anti-evolutionists portray “Darwinism” (their name for all of evolution) as “a theory on the brink of collapse.” Science is all about confirming and rejecting hypotheses to get ever closer to the truth, and in the case of evolution long-standing ideas continue to thrive and expand, just as with other scientific disciplines in which the details remain to be elucidated. It’s really pretty cool.
“No one is denying that species evolve to some extent, based on environment and certain traits yielding higher survival. Evolution in itself is not contrary to Creationism or the belief in a higher power being involved.”
I wish more Christians believed your second sentence, but I’m sure you’d agree that (Bible literalists who embrace the idea of a 6,000-year-old-earh) cannot in any way accept evolution.
You seem genuinely interested, so I’ll ask — how is it that you think that organisms can evolve “to a certain extent”? What’s the limitation you’re imposing? Do you believe that organisms within a species can change, but that new ones can’t evolve for existing ones?
“You bottom-feeders continually demand evidence, and when it’s given (as with the links and articles at sites like talkorigins.org”
Which proves where you got your theories, not proof that their true. Creation science websites can refute that easily, but then we’d have to listen to you “screeching about biased sites anyway.”
“Do I need to cite a source for my claim that 99.99% of sane physicists believe in the concepts of mass, force and acceleration?”
Yes, otherwise, its a matter of your opinion, not fact. You seem to get the two confused quite frequently.
“apostle, I believe that were I as stupid and brainwashed as you are and could somehow be made aware of this information, I would have to off or at least castrate myself. You don’t stand a chance in this world.”
I actually do quite well, without the “enlightening” dung heap of an excuse for science that your small weak world is based on.
” wish more Christians believed your second sentence, but I’m sure you’d agree that the fundies (Bible literalists who embrace the idea of a 6,000-year-old-earh) cannot in any way accept evolution”
I’ve stated something similiar numerous times in other posts, but you’d rather ignore that fact and insult Christians just because you’re pi$$ed that your knowledge of what you call science doesn’t impress them. I wouldn’t even feel the need to comment if your bigtory and arrogance wasn’t so blatant. The fact that you claim to speak for the whole scientific community is rich, especially when you claim those that might not agree are less than credible. YOU say they aren’t credible.
I’ve said before I’m not sold on the 6,000 year old world, but unlike you, I’m able to look at both presentations objectively. You are equally guilty of the same amount of ignorance and stubborness you are trying to paint on Christians. You’re wrong and you know your wrong. Why should I trust your “sources” when there are equally intelligent people with the same degree from the same school that refute it? You dismiss just as quickly any kind of Creation science that might bring up a point regarding evolution. You are no better.
Science in a lot of cases, especially when talking about origins, or even evolution, is open to interpretation. Much like history. Talk to a ‘Nam vet from the U.S. and then talk to one from the NVA and you’ll see two very different accounts of who what when where why and how. Yet you claim that YOUR interpretation of evolution is the accepted idea of the science and realm and that all credible scientists adhere.
Evolution doesn’t bother me a bit, because, as you say, it doesn’t set out to disprove anything about my God, and couldn’t if it wanted to. There is nothing about science that will ever disprove Him. My bone of contention is your quickness to insult the intelligence of anyone believing in sky-gods, and questioning any aspect of evolution at all. You are no more objective than the average religious zealot, a concept you make clear by claiming that evolution is a fact and that only Christians and those on this site are ignorant to that fact. As I asked before, tell me why your precious evolution doctrine is taught everywhere in America and why the majority of Americans still claim “skygods.” Yes I know, science doesn’t set out to disprove anything, but you claim science does continually. It must anger you that so many find evolution so hard to believe, or that Christian evangelicals are better recruiters. Either way,someone confident in his fact and research would not be so easily enticed to anger. Deal with your own insecurity, or quit making claims you have no ability to demonstrate.
For the record genius, this accidental world you live in will not be here forever. You will have to give an account someday for your stupidity. For nature to create life by itself is impossible, and something or someone would have to be here in order to create nature. It is impossible that the universe created itself. Something or someone had to be here to create it. (And someone to create that and something to create that…)
There had to be a beginning somewhere. Someone of your intelligence understands this more than you let on, you simply get mad and get even when people see how full of crap you are. But feel free to post back and prove my points by insulting me through and through but in the end, really saying nothing.
Haldol, I’ve seen you state over and over again that all credible scientists accept evolution as fact. I will now prove your assertion false. Following is a GROWING List of more than 400 scientists who have staged “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.”
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
If you continue to say that all educated people take evolution as a fact, your credibility will drop exponentially.
If you just dismiss this list and say “Anyone deserving of the title of “scientist” accepts evolution because it is literally impossible to conduct meaningful research in biology without acknowledging, and operating in accordance, with its central tenets. That is also a fact, and if you contest it, I expect to see your credentials and reasons for arguing,” your credibility will continue to drop exponentially.
I am very interested in seeing your response. I highly suspect you will just wave this off, but it’s up to you to prove me wrong.
While, Haldol. In my absence you have done exactly what I expected you to do. You make personal attacks, make the same ol’ wild claims, and then stick your head in the sand when someone points out how dead wrong you are.
“You seem genuinely interested, so I’ll ask — how is it that you think that organisms can evolve “to a certain extent”? What’s the limitation you’re imposing? Do you believe that organisms within a species can change, but that new ones can’t evolve for existing ones?”
I’m not answering for anyone else, but I suppose I can answer for the average Creationist. The average Creationist believes in microevolution. It is an integral part of the greater Flood theory, as even before there were any assumptions about evolution (though the Greeks and Phoenicians proposed extremely similar theories to Darwinism) and if anyone bothered to take the time to think about the Flood they would realize that many variations have come from only a (comparitive) handful of original kinds on the Ark.
An example of macroevolution is the development of new organs. Young Earth Creationists don’t believe in that. An example of microevolution is a change in size of an animal. YECs believe in that. So we believe that were original “kinds” (as described in Genesis) with more available traits. As these animals spread across the earth, natural selection eliminated the harmful traits (such as a thick coat in the jungle) and the adaptable original kind was lost to many variations. The same goes for humans, although with some differences. Natural selection plays a minor part on humans. The major development of races was at Babel. After the languages were confused, the groups that could understand each other traveled across the world together. Since for a couple generations all humans were freely inter-marrying and then they were immediately confined to groups, distinctive traits, and also a lack of other ones, developed. Ask any credible majority expert on genetics, they’ll confirm that when a larger group is breeding within itself and then they are splintered into smaller ons, many traits will be lost and other ones made more common and/or apparent.
Evidence for this is in the number of genomes life forms have and junk DNA. While most “junk” DNA is labeled as such due to human ignorance, some of it does have truly no purpose. That means that a few generations ago it did have a purpose, almost exclusively recessive traits. So Noah’s sons and their wives had much less junk DNA, and Adam, probably none at all (considering he was created perfect). Next, look at the number of genomes animals have. Dogs have somewhere around 70 of them, many more than humans as dogs are much more varied.
Now Haldol, you really should try to explain the evolution of the circulatory system and the genders, as well as the whale. My comment proved beyond a reasonable doubt that evolution is false. So, along with the ability to teach Intelligent Design without a mention of God and the fact America IS a Christian nation (84% of Americans call themselves Christian, and the Supreme Court has confirmed in the past the religious foundation of the nation, and so did Patrick Henry: “It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”) and a majority of Americans suppor the teaching of Creationism/ID, schools should stop indoctrinating the secularization of the country.
He’s not listening anymore. You went over his head with fact.