B5A-Creation
Graham Kendall
Modified 2/2/2010
Email grahamkendall74135@yahoo.com
I am found on IRC Efnet, Undernet, Dalnet as glk
Files found at http://www.grahamkendall.net
http://snipurl.com/yt8o    my url
http://tinyurl.com/ydjvt3   my url, index
All are free to use any of this material without limit.
*******************************************************************************
=====
Creationist leader Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis exemplifies the
fundamentalist insistence that man is the center of God's creation:

The real world is the biblical world‹a universe designed by God with the Earth
at the spiritual focal point, not an evolutionary universe teeming with life
... Extraterrestrial life is an evolutionary concept; it does not comport with
the biblical teachings of the uniqueness of the Earth and the distinct
spiritual position of human beings (Ham 2008).
==
Noah's Flood: The New Scientific Discoveries About The Event That Changed
History (Paperback)
~ William Ryan (Author), Walter Pitman (Author) 

Before the Flood: The Biblical Flood as a Real Event and How It Changed the
Course of Civilization
by Ian Wilson


Flood Legends - Global Clues of a Common Event
by Charles Martin

sediments in the Black Sea convinced them that the body had been a freshwater
lake until about 5600 B.C. When the rising waters of the Mediterranean broke
through the Bosporus, "ten cubic miles of water poured through each day, two
hundred times what flows over Niagara Falls."

==
According to Assyrian legend, when the gods met to create the world, they
drank wine made from sesame seeds.
==
Greek creation myth  First Chaos. And out of Chaos came Chronus (time);
 and from Chronus came Zeuss, father of all the gods. 
==
Richard Dawkins (Dawkins 2006) argues at length that any being capable of
bringing the universe into existence, fine-tuning all its laws, creating life,
and knowing the position of every particle in the universe‹past present and
future‹cannot be a simple being but must be unfathomably complex. This renders
the theistic argument from design self-defeating, since the core of the
argument is that complexity requires a designer, and if the designer (God)
himself is complex, an even more complex superdesigner (Super-God) is required
to have designed God, ad infinitum.

That requiring a designer to explain every instance of complexity leads to an
infinite regress of ever more complex designers to design the prior designers.
==
Krishna was so ordered by His mother, He immediately opened His mouth just
like an ordinary boy. Then mother Yasoda saw within that mouth the complete
opulence of creation. She saw the entire outer space in all directions,
mountains, islands, oceans, seas, planets, air, fire, moon and stars.
==
Let us consider the consequences of abandoning too soon the quest for natural
explanations for phenomena we do not understand. From a practical standpoint,
it removes incentives for further discovery. For example, after centuries of
research, scientists still do not understand what causes lightning. Should we
then conclude that, on the basis of this failure, Thor, the Norse god of
thunder, is responsible for this phenomenon after all? Or perhaps Baal, the
Canaanite god of rain and thunder? Here is the rub: if we cede to supernatural
explanations, we are essentially saying, "We don't know the causes, and
furthermore we know we cannot know; therefore, we conclude that God did it,
and by doing so, we're giving up on any fruitful scientific research into the
causes." Few modern believers would fault scientists for their ongoing quest
to discover the natural causes of lightning, yet many criticize naturalists
for their determination to explain the origin and development of life without
reference to God. Nothing spells the end of investigation like holding out the
possibility that a thorny problem requires a supernatural explanation.
==
Empirical testing relies fundamentally upon the lawful regularities of nature
which science has been able to discover and sometimes codify in natural laws.
For example, telescopic observations implicitly depend upon the laws governing
optical phenomena. If we could not rely upon these laws‹if, for example, even
when under the same conditions, telescopes occasionally magnified properly and
at other occasions produced various distortions dependent, say, upon the whims
of some supernatural entity‹we could not trust telescopic observations as
evidence (Pennock 1999, 194-95)
==
This brings me to the end of the space I have to discuss evolution, but there
is a wealth of material available to those who would like to learn more. For
those who maintain the earth is only a few thousand years old, see Dave
Matson's How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments? A Close Look at Dr.
Hovind's List of Young-Earth Arguments and Other Claims (Matson 2004) or Brent
Dalrymple's "How Old is the Earth: A Response to 'Scientific' Creationism"
(Dalrymple 2006). For those who are skeptical of evolutionary theory, I
recommend Kenneth Miller's Finding Darwin's God (Miller 1999) and Only a
Theory (Miller 2008); Douglas Theobald's "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution"
(Theobald 2007a); and the Talk Origins Archive (Talk Origins Archive 2006) as
good introductory material. The Talk Origins Archive maintains a comprehensive
"Index to Creationist Claims," answering all the common objections to evolution
(Isaak 2006). For ongoing coverage of the evolution-intelligent design debate,
see the Panda's Thumb weblog (Panda's Thumb 2009).
==
Those who continue to hitch their faith to the anti-evolutionary bandwagon
would do well to consider the perspective of outspoken evangelical Christian
Francis Collins, who headed up the monumental Human Genome Project. The
following is an excerpt from his Point of Inquiry podcast interview with D. J.
Grothe:

Intelligent Design, by the way, which is a recent arrival on the scene, I
think is headed for collapse in the not-too-distant future. It's based upon a
premise which is sort of a god-of-the-gaps idea, that evolution just wasn't
quite good enough to come up with all the complex machines we find inside
people's cells, and basically, as we learn much more about cell biology, and
particularly about the human genome and other genomes, it's pretty clear that
that was a naive interpretation‹evolution is actually quite capable of such
complexity because it occurs in a stepwise fashion. I actually am quite
heartbroken to see the way in which many churches have embraced Intelligent
Design because they felt they had to have something to defend against
evolutionary atheism, and yet they've attached themselves to a perspective
that is headed for trouble, and in the process, I fear that the churches will
be demoralized, and faith will be made to look foolish, all of which is
totally unnecessary (Collins 2007).
==
I found myself intrigued by Behe's finely tuned arguments while reading his
book, wondering whether he might have a legitimate, even if unconventional,
case. Alas, it turns out his central claim that novel protein-protein binding
sites have not arisen since the time we began studying the DNA of human
parasites is unfounded. For example, the relatively new HIV-1-specific gene
VPU has already developed a number of variants involving different
protein-protein binding sites to enable the virus to extract itself more
readily from infected cells (Smith 2007). Any critical peer review of his
manuscript should have brought this fact to light prior to publication. As it
turns out, he was placed in the awkward position of having to acknowledge this
earlier discovery as a counterexample to one of the central theses of his book
after its publication (Musgrave 2007).

==
In his second book, The Edge of Evolution, Behe probes more deeply into what
he considers to be the limits of unguided evolution, while fully embracing and
defending the idea that all species, including humans and apes, share a common
ancestor.

When two lineages share what appears to be an arbitrary genetic accident, the
case for common descent becomes compelling, just as the case for plagiarism
becomes overpowering when one writer makes the same unusual misspellings of
another, within a copy of the same words ... More compelling evidence for
shared ancestry of humans and other primates comes from their hemoglobin‹not
just their working hemoglobin, but a broken hemoglobin gene, too ... The
bottom line is this. Common descent is true; yet the explanation of common
descent‹even the common descent of humans and chimps‹although fascinating, is
in a profound sense trivial ...
==
While it is true that fewer scientific articles have been published on the
evolutionary origin of these cellular nanomachines than on the origin of macro
structures, productive research is in fact being conducted and published,
contrary to the ongoing claims of Behe. In the famous 2005 "Dover Intelligent
Design" trial, he was presented with a stack of 58 publications addressing the
origin of the immune system alone (Bottaro, Inlay, and Matzke 2006). Of course
neither he nor any committed proponent of Intelligent Design or creationism
will find them satisfactory, but molecular precursors and genetic fossils of
intermediate functions for many of the components said to constitute
irreducibly complex machinery are being discovered at a rapid pace,
demonstrating that these mechanisms are not in fact irreducibly complex as
claimed. For a detailed treatment of functional molecular precursors to the
bacterial flagellum, the flagship of irreducible complexity, see N. Matzke's
"Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial
flagellum" (Matzke 2003). For a succinct refutation of the argument from
irreducible complexity, see Douglas Theobald's "The Mullerian Two-Step: Add a
part, make it necessary" (Theobald 2007b).

==
Then I began considering examples of functionally intermediate organs and
structures scattered throughout the present-day natural world. There are
flying squirrels with flaps of skin between their limbs that allow them to
glide from tree to tree. Not as elegant as bird wings, to be sure, but useful
nonetheless when it comes to escaping predators. As soon as my curiosity was
aroused, such intermediates came to my attention everywhere: "flying" snakes
with flattened bodies to permit gliding; "flying" frogs with giant webbed
feet; bacterial poison pumps whose parts correspond to those of the bacterial
flagellum in other bacteria; and every imaginable form of vision from the
light-sensitive spots of microbes, to the slightly cupped light detectors of
starfish, to the black-and-white eyesight of most mammals, to the exquisite
color vision of birds and primates. What good is half an eye? As the saying
goes, "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king." It matters little
that your vision is imperfect; if it is ever so slightly superior to that of
your competitors, you have an advantage that, in a cutthroat environment, will
make your genes more likely to become part of the wider gene pool, all else
being equal.
==
Here are a few other questions that come to mind: Why, in keeping with the
expectations of evolution, has there been a relentless struggle to survive,
along with diseases, parasites, vines, thorns, poison, shells, predation,
camouflage, and starvation, going back for eons? Why have so many species gone
extinct, and why are the creatures that succeeded them in the fossil record
similar to the ones they replaced? Why are certain animal groups (for example,
marsupials) bound to particular geographical regions? Why do our genes show a
seeming common history with those of the apes, including certain neutral or
even harmful genes? Why can mutant chickens grow alligator-like teeth (Biello
2006)? Why do some whales and anteaters sprout teeth in the womb and lose them
before birth? Why do certain fossil whales have hind legs (Sutera 2001)? Why do
some modern-day humpback whale specimens sport external legs while most members
of their same species do not (Theobald 2007a , part 1, sec. 4)? Why don't
whales have gills? Why do dolphins have all the same arm and finger bones (for
five fingers) as other mammals while sharks have only cartilage for the same
function? Why do bats have what appear to be five long webbed fingers for
their wings? Why can HIV adapt quickly to synthetic drugs? Why have certain
microbes adapted to consume and metabolize artificial nylon by-products
(Miller 2008, 80-83)? Why can mosquitoes come to resist pesticides? Why have
carnivorous lizards released from one small island to another developed a
special intestinal valve to facilitate digestion of plant material after only
three decades (Herrel et al. 2008)?[35] 
==
Creationists are continually being forced to change the goalposts concerning
their predictions that certain transitional forms will never be found. No
sooner is a new specimen unearthed (for example, morphological intermediates
between land mammals and whales such as Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, and Dorudon;
or morphological intermediates between fish and tetrapods, like Tiktaalik
roseae; or the Cambrian fossil Orthrozanclus, which bridges the "unbridgeable"
gap between three top-level phyla: mollusks, annelids, and brachiopods) than
creationists begin publishing explanations for why these are not or cannot be
transitional forms after all. The elephant in the room, the question I never
hear them address is, "Why, in the first place, should there exist fossils
whose appearance as intermediates requires explaining away?" Again, whether or
not such explanations are legitimate, it is clear that many of these fossils do
manifest features to some degree intermediate in form between two groups for
which creationists earlier predicted no intermediates would be found. It is
irrelevant whether the intermediates precisely bisect the previous gap,
whether the intermediates are of the expected size, and whether parts of the
skeleton are incomplete. What matters for the credibility of the creation
model is that there exist intermediate features that creationists had earlier
predicted not to exist, and that these erroneous predictions require
explaining away. This is not to deny that significant gaps do still exist, but
it does not change the reality that many previously unknown, morphologically
intermediate forms have been found since the time Darwin advanced his theory.

Despite the oft-heard assertion that no true intermediate forms exist in the
fossil record, young-earth creationist paleontologist Kurt Wise acknowledges
both their existence and their importance:

Of Darwinism's four stratomorphic intermediate expectations, that of the
commonness of inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has been the most
disappointing for classical Darwinists. The current lack of any certain
inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has, of course, led to the
development and increased acceptance of punctuated equilibrium theory.
Evidences for Darwin's second expectation‹of stratomorphic intermediate
species‹include such species as Baragwanathia (between rhyniophytes and
lycopods), Pikaia (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius (between
the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul (between the nonhominoid
primates and the hominoids). Darwin's third expectation‹of higher-taxon
stratomorphic intermediates‹has been confirmed by such examples as the
mammal-like reptile groups between the reptiles and the mammals, and the
phenacdontids between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin's fourth
expectation‹of stratomorphic series‹has been confirmed by such examples as the
early bird series, the tetrapod series, the whale series, the various mammal
series of the Cenozoic (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the
elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius
and Plesiadapus primate series, and the hominid series. Evidence for not just
one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic
intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence
for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.
It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected
(predicted) any of these fossil finds (Wise 1995, 218-19; emphasis in
original).
==
Another showstopper for evolution might have been for God to have made no
animals at all, or at least to have left much larger gaps between species,
both living and extinct. If dogs had been the closest animals to humans, for
example, Darwin would never have been able to propose his theory. As it is, we
share some 95% of our genome with chimpanzees and 99.4% of our known functional
genes (Wildman et al. 2003). There exist a number of fossil skulls intermediate
in size and form between apes and humans; creationist leaders disagree over
which ones are apes and which are humans (Miller 2008, 95).[34] Like
chimpanzees and other mammals, we have miniscule muscles that make our body
hair stand on end when we're frightened or cold. For mammals with fur, this
serves to make their body appear larger and intimidate predators or prey (cats
not only stick out their fur but also arch their backs), or to enhance the
insulation effect of the fur when cold. But for those of us with insignificant
body hair, these functions are correspondingly insignificant and suggest the
appearance of descent from mammals in which the function was significant.
Again, the point is not whether an alternative explanation can be imagined for
these phenomena, but why God did not act to prevent the appearance of our
descent from furry mammals when it was in his power to do so.

Additionally, God could have nipped the idea of evolution in the bud by
arranging the fossil record in any of a virtually limitless number of possible
ways other than the way in which it is in fact arranged, with only simple
organisms in the deepest (oldest) strata and more complex ones appearing in
higher (younger) strata. Ad-hoc creationist explanations for this ordering,
such as the tendency of more advanced animals to seek higher ground during
Noah's flood (and thus to be buried in higher strata than the simpler animals)
(Morris 1974, 118-20), serve only to acknowledge but not solve the problem.
This explanation is untenable because relatively advanced plants like grass
and flowering plants (which cannot flee the oncoming flood) appear only in the
higher strata.  
==
In the ongoing debate between creationism and evolution, there is one crucial
matter creationists seldom address. While responding point by point to the
commonly presented forest of evidence for evolution, attempting to explain
away and knock down one tree at a time, they rarely stop to ask the question,
"Why would God allow so much apparent evidence for evolution to exist in the
first place? Did he plant this evidence as a means of giving unbelievers a
ready excuse for rejecting God? Is God deceitful, or is there in fact not even
any apparent evidence for evolution?" If indeed evolution did not happen, there
are countless ways God could have prevented it from even getting off the ground
as a scientific theory.

For instance, if he had created the universe without the appearance of great
age, evolution simply would not have had the necessary time to do its
work.[33] When astronomers witness a supernova explosion in a galaxy nine
billion light years away, this suggests at least an appearance that the
universe is old, since (apparently) it would take billions of years for the
light from that event to reach earth. The point is not whether there might be
some alternative explanation (for example, Humphrey's thoroughly discredited
"Starlight and Time" hypothesis (Ross and Conner 1999)) to defend a young
earth. The point is that this appearance of age does in fact exist, an
appearance that God could have preempted in any number of ways‹for example, by
making the visible universe smaller or the speed of light much greater.

==
Among the extensive body of genetic evidence for common descent, one
straightforward argument is that all mammals, with the exception of guinea
pigs, apes, and the monkeys that are most closely related to apes, are able to
fabricate their own vitamin C. Guinea pigs and jungle-dwelling primates have a
diet rich in vitamin C, so the loss of this capability would not have been
harmful to them. Humans, too, as primates, lack this capability. That in
itself would be food for thought, but even more startling is that we, along
with certain monkeys (like macaques) and apes, possess an inactive gene
corresponding to the gene for vitamin C production in other mammals. To top it
off, the stop codons responsible for inactivating that gene are found in the
same position on the same gene for both humans and other primates. This can be
readily accounted for if humans and apes share a common ancestor, a primate
that long ago lost its ability to generate its own vitamin C while obtaining
its necessary supply from the readily available fruit on which it fed. From a
creationist standpoint, however, there is no a priori reason to suppose that
if certain monkeys have a broken gene for vitamin C production, then humans
and apes should also carry such a broken gene, let alone that it should be
broken in precisely the same location.
==
 Particularly convincing about evolution 
for me was an article entitled Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics (Max
1986-2003), which establishes common descent as firmly as any forensically
solved crime. It is fairly technical but directly addresses those who rely on
the oft-heard "similarity among species does not entail common ancestry but
common design" defense.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen
==
The Bible, Rocks and Time: Geological Evidence
for the Age of the Earth by evangelical Calvin College professors Davis Young
and Ralph Stearley (Young and Stearley 2008).
==
The other line of evidence for an old universe I explore here concerns the
light from distant supernova explosions. I can understand that God might have
wanted Adam to see starlight from distant stars the day he was created, so he
might have created the universe in such a way that the light from stars
thousands of light years away had already reached the earth at the beginning.
It becomes more problematic to think of supernova explosions billions of light
years away. If we assume that the speed of light has always remained more or
less what it is today, then the light our telescopes capture when we witness
one of these events has either been in transit for billions of years, in which
case the universe really is old, or the light did not come from these actual
supernovas but was divinely fabricated to seem as though it did. But if we
allow for divine fabrication, then we have to ask whether this would be in
some sense deceitful on God's part‹it means we think we're following the
physical evidence, but God has deliberately made it so the evidence can't be
followed, and then he blames us for following it. It is not only skeptics that
find this problematic; YEC astronomer Danny Faulkner expresses the same
concern:

Most creationists have adopted the concept of a fully functioning universe as
the best explanation for the light travel time problem. In the garden Adam
would have been a particularly healthy male. If we could go back in a time
machine and examine him we might have concluded that he was 20 to 30 years
old. Of course we would have been wrong, because Adam was created only a few
days before. In other words, creation implies some sort of apparent history.
It is argued that in like fashion, for the stars to serve their intended
purpose (for the marking of time and seasons) their light must have reached
earth in time for Adam to see them two days later. Thus God must have created
the light in transit. But did Adam bear the scars of past history, such as
injuries that never happened? When the fossilized remains of large extinct and
previously unknown creatures were unearthed over a century ago, some Christians
responded that the fossils were created in the rocks and that the creatures
never existed; they just appeared to have existed. Most people would reject
this as absurd. Yet the creation of starlight in transit raises a similar
philosophical point. In the spring of 1987 a superdeca was observed in a
nearby galaxy called the Large Magellanic Cloud. Since that time the progress
of the explosion and its aftermath have been carefully observed. We have been
able to piece together many fine details of what happened. But if the notion
of light created in transit is correct, then none of the observed events
happened. How is this different from God creating fossils in the ground?
(Faulkner 1998)

==
While the counting of the annual layers is not always straightforward and
carries some assumptions about the regularity of cold versus warm seasonal
weather patterns, these basic assumptions are independently confirmed by
cross-comparison with major volcanic eruption events in history. For example,
we know from historical records that Vesuvius blew its top in 79 CE, and all
four of the core samples show a greatly increased level of sulphuric acid in
that year and for other years with known major volcanic events (Vinther 2006,
54). The same correlation has been done by studying tree rings from very old
trees that are still alive from the time of Vesuvius and by employing
Carbon-14 and Beryllium-10 radiometric dating. The conclusion is that the
possible margin of error for the ice core dating is 0.25% going back 4000
years, 0.5% going back 7000 years, 2% going back 10000 years, and 0.67% going
back 12,000 years (the latter being based on radiometric cross-confirmations)
(Vinther 2006, 43). These basic assumptions have also been borne out through
analysis of Antarctic ice cores.
==
According to Bo Møllesøe Vinther's dissertation at the University of
Copenhagen, scientists have extracted cores from at least 20 different
locations in the vast Greenland ice sheet, up to 3 kilometers deep (Vinther
2006, 12). The focus of Vinther's dissertation is on the past 12,000 annual
layers of a 120,000-year ice core record based on four key core samples from
different regions in Greenland.
=
As St. Augustine of Hippo famously wrote more than
a dozen centuries before the advent of modern geology:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens,
and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars
and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of
the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of
animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being
certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous
thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of
Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means
to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast
ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that
an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of
faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of
those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized
and rejected as unlearned men.
If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well
and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they
going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the
dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think
their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have
learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent
expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser
brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and
are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred
books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue
statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even
recite from memory many passages which they think support their position,
although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they
make assertion (Augustine 408, sec 39, 42-43).
==
The facts that give science its power.
Not surprisingly, those who want to puncture the reputation of science and
drain off its immense prestige and influence tend to ignore the wide-angle
perspective and concentrate on the clashes of schools and their not-so-hidden
agendas. But ironically, when they set out to make their case for the
prosecution (using all the finely polished tools of logic and statistics), all
their good evidence of the failings and biases of science comes from science's
own highly vigorous exercises in self-policing and self-correction. The
critics have no choice: There is no better source of truth on any topic than
well-conducted science, and they know it (Dennett 2006, 372).
==
Geoffrey Simmons  What Darwin Didn't Know: A Doctor
Dissects the Theory of Evolution,
==
Columbia Biblical Seminary (now Columbia International University), a
conservative, missions-oriented school in Columbia, South Carolina.  
The seminary's policy is that graduates assent to the inerrancy of the Bible.
==
Christianity and the Age of the Earth (Young 1988), by Christian
geologist and old earth creationist Davis Young,

 The Jan 2009 Scientific American is about evolution

The Sept 2009 Scientific American is about origin of the universe
and origin of life, among other matters
==
According to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, "Creationism, intelligent
design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or
of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of
science."
==
"As a Christian man, yes, I do believe it is God as the divine power and as
the intelligent designer of evolution," Dembski answered
==
The apparent age argument is that the universe and the
Earth are just a few thousand years old but God deliberately
made it look much older.
In other words, those proposing the apparent age are
not saying that we don't understand it. Instead they
are saying that the universe was intentionally made
to look different from what it is.
One of the apparent age arguments is that God created
"light in place". In other words when God created the
universe 6000 years ago, He created a light beam coming
from each distant star. That's why we can see things
that are more than 6000 light years from Earth.
So we accurately understand that those stars are more
than 6000 years from Earth. But God created the light
from that star.
**IF** light was not created in place then things
would look very different. Imagine that light only
started to come towards Earth when a star is created.
We would see many fewer stars. But what we would see
are new stars appearing, here and there, in the night
sky. At 6114 years after the creation, we would
suddenly see a star that is 6114 light years from
Earth. It would have taken that long for the light
to get here from the moment that the star was created
6114 years ago. Once it first appeared here we would
continue to see it until 6114 years after the star
stopped shining.
Seems reasonable, right?
Is that deceptive?
You could argue that it isn't, except for one thing.
That light beam that was 'created in place" would have
mythical events depicted in it.
There are things called "supernovas" . Those are stellar
explosions. They are so violent that an individual
supernova can outshine the entire galaxy in which the
star that is exploding exists. But because they are
so violent that they don't last very long. At most
they last a few months.
But we can see supernovas on light from stars well over
6000 light-years from Earth. So **IF** God created
"light in place" then He inserted images of imaginary
events into that light beam.
How is that not deceptive?
==
Research to develop models to understand the role of microbes before  and
after the Fall and speciation of animals after the Flood.
==
Søren Løvtrup,  Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (New York: Croom Helm,
 1987)
==
http://www.answersincreation.org/mortond.htm
=-=
Creationism was scientific in
a way; it made predictions. Unfortunately, the predictions it made
(young Earth, unrelated species, independent creations, unchanging
species, etc.) were falsified.
==
 _The Devil in Dover_ by Lauri Lebo   Dover trial

_Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design_ by
Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross. 
More specific to schools, see _Not in Our
Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design is Wrong for our Schools_ ed. by Eugenie C.
Scott and Glenn Branch.
==
You cannot reason somebody out of what they weren't reasoned into.
Creationists base their view on faith not science. Faith cannot be defeated or
staggered by a blow from science no matter how reasonable it is. Creationists
lose their invincibility when they try to use science against scientists. It
doesn't ever work.
I think a great deal of the motive force behind ID is a unwarranted fear of
science. These religious people feel that science makes very broad claims
about reality and in great part these claims are contrary to their dearly held
traditions.
If the religious community doesn't stop taking every specific
detail of the bible (dates, lengths of time, the rapture) so seriously, then
they will only succeed in driving away every person of intelligence.
It's also been a
good long while since chemistry teachers taught alchemy, but I don't see all
that many people whining about intellectual repression, the "cult of
chemistry", etc. etc. There are people who believe lots of crazy things -
there is in fact a society that proclaims the truth of the flat earth - but
that doesn't mean we should be giving them equal, or even partial time in
academic discussion. It's not censorship, it's merely following the principles
of good science. There are unanswered questions about evolution, but scientists
are constantly striving to solve such problems, and new discoveries are
constantly being made. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory, and all
the "problems" they've identified with the theory of evolution have been
thoroughly addressed by scientists, using, once again, the principles of
science and rationality and truth. The creationists, in spite of all that,
continue to rant about how nobody can answer their questions, how horribly
repressed they are, etc. 
Here's the thing - you can hold your views all you want. You can believe that
evolution is a flawed theory and that intelligent design is a more probable
answer. I don't think you're being completely rational, but everyone has some
irrational aspects about them. However, when you try to say that such views
should be allowed to be taught in schools, and that they should have a place
in scientific institutions and the sort - well, I'm going to fight against
that as much as I'm going to fight against someone trying to teach that the
earth is flat or that the theory of gravity is false. No, it shouldn't even be
taught as an option because there's absolutely nothing scientific about it.
Intelligent Design is NOT a new theory brought forth by Michael Behe and
his ilk. It is the result of the 1987 Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard.
In that case, the Supreme Court (rightly) decided that creationism could not be
taught in public school science classes because science teachers would be
advancing a religion by doing so, thus violating the Establishment Clause of
the United States constitution. During the Kitzmiller et al v. Dover Area
School District trial, the plantiffs representing the parents pointed out a
piece of text in which the word "creationist" was partially whited out and
"designist" was typed in. At the trial, Michael Behe admitted his "theory" was
no more scientifically valid that astrology.
==
Even worse, they include a Global Flood where one family survived. Well,
let's look at sexually transmitted diseases. Did they all evolve in the 5,000
years since the Great Flood? Or were Noah and his family infected with the
ancestors of every SD around today?
ID'er need to get over the fact that their idea is not Science, never has been
Science, and never will be Science. The Scientific Method mandates that you
test, re-test, and test again the various hypotheses - ID'ers can't. Their
answer to every question is "God did it." How do you test that?
And, if the you look at the history of Science, you will see a field of
continuous change, as new information and insight is gained into the natural
world, theories change to conform to the new information that is available.
People who claim that Scientists have been wrong in the past - well yes, of
course they were wrong (like the Sun revolving around the Earth and other
outdated and discredited theories) because they didn't have access to the
tools that would allow them to make the observations necessary to disprove the
"mainstream" theory.
Science constantly changes - ID'ers don't accept any change at all. "God Did
It" is the one and only answer
==
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth
==
Goodbye Darwin (Hardcover)~ Cherif El Ayouty (Author) 
==
If something that is irreducibly complex must likely be designed by
some kind of intelligent agent, then, logically, the intelligent agent
should be of sufficient complexity to require a designer, correct?
==
In a recent poll, only 32 percent of the general public believed that
humans and other living things evolved naturally.
==
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/evolution_the_big_hoax.htm
==
http://creation.com/origin-of-life-questions-and-answers
==
This is what happens when scientists are unwilling to take the time to teach
the public instead of just claiming they are right.   Until the scientists and
scholars come out of their ivory towers and work with the people in a more
public manner, science will take a back seat to religion.
==
According to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, "Creationism, intelligent
design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or
of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of
science."

"As a Christian man, yes, I do believe it is God as the divine power and as
the intelligent designer of evolution,"    Dembski Answered
==
http://missinguniversemuseum.com/    creationist
==
http://debunkcreationscience.hostse.com/
==
Secretary of the Interior, Alan Watts, said we have to log all the trees before
Jesus comes again.
==
I describe a US education system that blunders so profoundly at teaching
understanding of the real world, it even produces creationists as its
most tragic example of failing its students:
==
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html    anti-evolution
==
Texas School Board Invites Critique of Scientific Theories
In a final vote, the Texas Board of Education approved on Friday new language
that requires science teachers to encourage students to ³critique² and examine
³all sides² of scientific theories.
In adopting the new science standards, the board dropped a 20-year requirement
that teachers address both the ³strengths and weaknesses² of scientific
theories. The vote was 13-2.
The new curriculum will be in place for the next decade.
³Texas now has the most progressive science standards on evolution in the
entire nation,² said Dr. John West, Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute, an
intelligent design think tank, in a statement. ³Texas has sent a clear message
that evolution should be taught as a scientific theory open to critical
scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can¹t be questioned.²
Although critics of evolution praised the move, it wasn¹t a total victory for
them.
The Board rejected two amendments that were written by Chairman Don McLeroy.
They required students to study the ³sufficiency or insufficiency² of common
ancestry and natural selection of species, according to The Dallas Morning
News.
³Science loses. Texas loses, and the kids lose because of this,² said a
disappointed McLeroy, as reported by the Dallas publication. McLeroy believes
many aspects of Charles Darwin¹s theory are not supported by fossil records.
Pro-evolutionists were pleased with the decision to drop McLeroy¹s proposals.
However, some questioned the board for adopting compromise language in the
areas of fossil records and the complexity of the cell. New language also
requires students to analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning
those two areas.
³Through a series of contradictory and convoluted amendments, the board
crafted a road map that creationists will use to pressure publishers into
putting phony arguments attacking established science into textbooks,² said
Kathy Miller, president of the watchdog group Texas Freedom Network, according
to the Associated Press.
The newly adopted standard states: ³In all fields of science, analyze,
evaluate and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence,
logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing including
examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations so
as to encourage critical thinking by the student.²
Board member Barbara Cargill, however, said the new standards were ³more clear
in the language and using words that aren¹t seen as code words² that helped
convince the board to ³agree that this is how we¹ll teach all sides of
scientific explanation, using scientific evidence,² as reported by AP.
Discovery Institute¹s West also responded to the concerns by
pro-evolutionists, assuring them that the new curriculum does not open the
door to teaching religion.
³Contrary to the claims of the evolution lobby, absolutely nothing the Board
did promotes Œcreationism¹ or religion in the classroom. Groups that assert
otherwise are lying, plain and simple. Under the new standards, students will
be expected to analyze and evaluate the scientific evidence for evolution, not
religion. Period.²
The new science curriculum standards will take effect with the 2010-2011
school year. Texas is one of the largest textbook purchasers in the nation and
thus has significant influence nationwide as publishers adapt their material to
its standards.
==
Complexity, especially extreme complexity, is evidence *against* design
and for evolution.  Evolution creates complexity; designers avoid it as
much as they can.
If you ask a creationism advoate to provide physical evidence that the
designer exists, they tend to say one of two things:  (a) the designer
is supernatural and cannot possibly be proved with physical evidence,
or (b) start with (a), and then pass off something like complexity as an
argument for the existence of the creator.
This is silly, because complexity of design doesn't say anything about
the creator unless you can say *why* the designer *decided* to go with a
complex design.
==
The creationists, as I see them, concentrate on saying that showing
(to their satisfaction) that something is wrong with evolution, and
never bother to show how creationism doesn't suffer from the same
(supposed) fault.
==
Creationist exams comparable to international A-levels, says Naric
ICCE teaches that Loch Ness monster disproves evolution and apartheid benefited
South Africa
Exams for which pupils are expected to believe that the Loch Ness monster
disproves evolution have been deemed equivalent to international A-levels by
a UK government agency.
The National Recognition Information Centre (Naric) in Cheltenham, which
advises universities and employers on the rigour of lesser-known qualifications,
has ruled that the International Certificate of Christian Education (ICCE) is
comparable to courses such as international A-levels, the Times Education
Supplement has found.
Teenagers studying for the certificate, which is taught in about 50 private
Christian schools in the UK, spend half their time learning from evangelical US
textbooks. The curriculum is based on the Accelerated Christian Education (ACE)
programme, which describes its ideology as "Christian fundamentalist".
Jonny Scaramanga, who was a pupil at a school in Bath that used the textbooks,
has complained to Naric that the books tell pupils that the Loch Ness monster
"appears to be a plesiosaur" and helps to disprove evolution.
The textbooks also state that apartheid helped South Africa because segregated
schools "made it possible for each group to maintain and pass on their culture
and heritage to their children".
One of the textbooks tells pupils: "Have you heard of the 'Loch Ness Monster' in
Scotland? 'Nessie,' for short has been recorded on sonar from a small submarine,
described by eyewitnesses, and photographed by others. Nessie appears to be a
plesiosaur.
"Could a fish have developed into a dinosaur? As astonishing as it may seem,
many evolutionists theorize that fish evolved into amphibians and amphibians
into reptiles. This gradual change from fish to reptiles has no scientific
basis. No transitional fossils have been or ever will be discovered because God
created each type of fish, amphibian, and reptile as separate, unique animals.
Any similarities that exist among them are due to the fact that one Master
Craftsmen fashioned them all."
Naric, which is funded by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills,
has said the ICCE is equivalent to the advanced certificate of Cambridge
International exam board's international A-levels.
Tim Buttress, Naric's spokesman, told the TES its remit did not cover the
curriculum's content.
==
Creationism's Trojan Horse  by Forrest and Gross
==
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use
==
http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/
==
If your interpretation of somebody's old mythology doesn't fit
reality, I'll go with reality. You don't *have to deny reality to be a
theist, or even a Christian. I learned evolutionary science from a
Christian. He said science was studying how God does things.
You worship an image of God that you have carved from your imagination
- more lifeless than iron, less mutable than stone. You are more
attached to your ideas than you are to any gods that might be.
==
If you think the Creation and Garden of Eden
story is literally true, then you might want to explain why all the
physical evidence says otherwise. If God is a trickster, what makes
you think stories attributed to him can be trusted?
The war - the dialog of science versus anti-science - is about whether
or not the universe is essentially an unknowable illusion, or whether
we can actually learn about it by studying it using naturalistic methodology.
==
According to a recent Gallup poll taken on 200th anniversary of
Charles Darwin's birth, only 39% of Americans believe in evolution.
==
After Adam and Eve sinned, God turned T-Rex into a carnivorous hunter,
so it could chase Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden for good.
==
Creationists claim that the
Bible is perfect but science is so imperfect it can't be trusted.
==
EVERY designer we have ever seen has:
1. had a material brain
2. operated in accord with natural law
==
One can test the mechanism of evolution, and
observe that populations do change over time.
What tests do you have for the action of a supernatural being?
==
Creationists defy what every day experience
tells a normal person: the universe is orderly. that's another reason
creationism has failed for thousands of years to explain anything
==
The creationist model merely posits an unobserved entity and, because the
entity is unobserved, is free also to posit any conceivable set of
characteristics for that entity, including the ability and desire to do
whatever we see.
===
Creationists
David K. DeWolf, Stephen C. Meyer, and Mark E. DeForrest (1999) Intelligent
Design in Public School Science Curriculum: A Legal Guidebook. Foundation for
Thought and Ethics. ISBN 0-9642104-1-X
Michael J. Behe, William A. Dembski and Stephen C. Meyer (2000) Science
and Evidence of Design in the Universe. Ignatius Press ISBN 0-89870-809-5
John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer (2003) Darwinism, Design, and
Public Education, Michigan State University Press. ISBN 0-87013-675-5

Scientific paper

*	Stephen C. Meyer (2004) The origin of biological information and the
higher taxonomic categories. Proceedings of the Biological Society of
Washington 117(2):213-239. online version This paper was withdrawn by
the publisher because the editor, fellow intelligent design proponent
Richard Sternberg, went outside the usual review procedures in allowing
Meyer's article to be published in his last issue as editor
==
The intellectually vacuous untestable claim of supernatural
design can uselessly explain anything and its opposite simultaneously.
You see design; but have no evidence of the when, where, why, who,
what or how of design issues.  These are the sources of the critical
scientific evidence that will demonstrate design.  It is for human
design.  Pattern in nature is well established and humans who create
it are not Gods.
===
Creationism has, for 2000 years, failed to explain a single feature of nature.
==
Terrence Jeffrey book Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for
Intelligent Design.
==
That is terrifying because creationist politicians make decisions with
long-term consequences based upon her abominable ignorance and superstition.
It is like giving a loaded hand gun to a child and having that
threat hang around for decades, or even centuries.
==
World's Oldest Living Tree -- 9550 years old -- Discovered In Sweden
ScienceDaily (Apr. 16, 2008)  The world's oldest recorded tree is a 9,550 year
old spruce in the Dalarna province of Sweden. The spruce tree has shown to be a
tenacious survivor that has endured by growing between erect trees and smaller
bushes in pace with the dramatic climate changes over time.
Œ[
For many years the spruce tree has been regarded as a relative newcomer in the
Swedish mountain region. "Our results have shown the complete opposite, that
the spruce is one of the oldest known trees in the mountain range," says Leif
Kullman, Professor of Physical Geography at Ume University.
A fascinating discovery was made under the crown of a spruce in Fulu Mountain
in Dalarna. Scientists found four "generations" of spruce remains in the form
of cones and wood produced from the highest grounds.
The discovery showed trees of 375, 5,660, 9,000 and 9,550 years old and
everything displayed clear signs that they have the same genetic makeup as the
trees above them. Since spruce trees can multiply with root penetrating
braches, they can produce exact copies, or clones.
The tree now growing above the finding place and the wood pieces dating 9,550
years have the same genetic material. The actual has been tested by carbon-14
dating at a laboratory in Miami, Florida, USA.
Previously, pine trees in North America have been cited as the oldest at 4,000
to 5,000 years old.
In the Swedish mountains, from Lapland in the North to Dalarna in the South,
scientists have found a cluster of around 20 spruces that are over 8,000 years
old.
Although summers have been colder over the past 10,000 years, these trees have
survived harsh weather conditions due to their ability to push out another
trunk as the other one died. "The average increase in temperature during the
summers over the past hundred years has risen one degree in the mountain
areas," explains Leif Kullman.
Therefore, we can now see that these spruces have begun to straighten
themselves out. There is also evidence that spruces are the species that can
best give us insight about climate change.
The ability of spruces to survive harsh conditions also presents other
questions for researchers.
Have the spruces actually migrated here during the Ice Age as seeds from the
east 1,000 kilometres over the inland ice that that then covered Scandinavia?
Do they really originate from the east, as taught in schools? "My research
indicates that spruces have spent winters in places west or southwest of
Norway where the climate was not as harsh in order to later quickly spread
northerly along the ice-free coastal strip," says Leif Kullman.
"In some way they have also successfully found their way to the Swedish
mountains."
The study has been carried out in cooperation with the County Administrative
Boards in Jmtland and Dalarna.
==
What's with the personal attacks on Darwin?
The usual and most plausible explanation is that creationists [a]
regard scientific theories that contradict their religious dogmas as,
themselves, alternate religious dogmas (I've seen this explicitly
asserted), and [b] regard religious dogmas as resting on the personal
authority, integrity, and holiness of those who propound them. The
whole question of evidence for evolutionary theory, or even what
evolutionary theory actually says or what would count as evidence for
it, is not so important to its opponents.
Note that recently there has been an increasing tendency to speak of
Darwinism. There are various reasons for this (to imply that
evolutionary theory is just another 19th-century enthusiasm, like
Marxism or Freudianism, or to obscure just what you are condemning in
order to appeal to different sorts of creationists), but part of the
reason is to imply that evolutionary theory is limited to, and
inclusive of, everything Darwin ever said or thought, as opposed to,
say, actual facts about nature some of which Darwin uncovered.
Fewer creationists oppose relativity than oppose common descent or
natural mechanisms for adaption and diversity. Even fewer, I think,
oppose calculus or even heliocentrism (although note that geocentrist
creationist Gerardus Bouw says terrible things about the character and
actions of Kepler).

They try the same with Darwin. If people think he was a bad person, no
one will follow him and especially evolution anymore, they think. The
obvious mistake they make of course is that science does not work that
way . In science the ideas
of Darwin have a life of their own and these ideas are credited by a
completely different system, based on evidence not politics or
emotions.
Evolution however has been established by so much research and the
idea is around (almost) the entire scientific community that I would
not give this strategy a change within the scientific community in
case of evolution.
But scientists are not the only people out there who could be
influenced by this. There are also politicians, managers and of course
common people. These have only a little knowledge of evolution (at
best) and how science works. A lot of them grew up with trust in
authority (church/state). A lot of them might be much more sensitive
to this Darwin is not to be trusted-strategy.
==
In Texas this week, Michael Behe seemed to have recovered from his testimony in
Dover
PA in 2005 in time to serve as an expert witness in 2006 on behalf of the
Association of Christian Schools International when it sued the University of
California system alleging that the rejection of several Christian science
courses was 'viewpoint discrimination' which violated the constitutional
rights of applicants from Christian schools whose high school coursework is
deemed inadequate preparation for college.
The Association retained leading intelligent design proponent Michael Behe to
testify in the case as an expert witness. Behe's expert witness report claimed
that the Christian textbooks were excellent works for high school students and
he defended that view in a deposition.
On March 28, 2008 the defendants won a legal victory when their motion for
partial summary judgment was granted, and the plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment was denied. On August 8, 2008, Judge Otero entered summary judgment
against plaintiff ACSI.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=242431442
===
Texas vote leaves loopholes for teaching creationism
It was a mixed bag of victory and defeat for science on Friday when the Texas
Board of Education voted on their state science standards. In a move that
pleased the scientific community, the board voted to not include proposed
changes that would call for the teaching of the "strengths and weaknesses" of
scientific theories ­ code words for allowing creationist views into the
classroom.
However, additional amendments that were voted through provide loopholes for
creationist teaching. "It's as if they slammed the door shut with strengths and
weaknesses, then ran around the house opening windows to let it in a bunch of
other ways," says Dan Quinn, who was on site at the hearings. Quinn is
communications director of the Texas Freedom Network, a community watchdog
organisation.
One amendment calls for students to "analyze and evaluate scientific
explanations concerning the complexity of the cell," phrasing that rings of
intelligent design arguments.
Another amendment requires students to "analyze and evaluate scientific
explanations concerning any data on sudden appearance and stasis and the
sequential groups in the fossil record." These issues are commonly held up by
creationists as arguments against evolution, even though the scientific
community disagrees.
Anti-evolutionist Don McLeroy, a dentist and chair of the Texas State Board of
Education, testified at Friday's hearing: "I disagree with these experts.
Someone has got to stand up to experts."
Age of the universe
An amendment to the environmental sciences standards requires students to
"analyze and evaluate different views on the existence of global warming",
despite overwhelming consensus within the scientific community that global
warming exists.
An amendment to the Earth and space sciences curriculum requires the teaching of
different theories of the origin, age and history of the universe. The board
voted to remove from the standards the statement that the universe is roughly 14
billion years old.
"The goal here was to make science more tentative and vague so that teachers
have room to tell students, 'This is only one explanation and the scientists are
not even sure about it themselves' ­ which is, of course, utter nonsense," says
Quinn.
School textbooks are required to comply with a state's science standards, so all
changes to the science standards translate into changes to textbooks. In two
years, the board will meet to review the state's textbooks, so creationists have
been eager to slip in changes to the standards ahead of time.
Influential state
Texas is one of the largest purchasers of textbooks in the US, a market
publishers can't afford to lose. So they will likely have to water down the
science in their books and add in creationist pseudo-science to appease the
school board. "If the publishers don't come back with arguments against natural
selection and common descent, the board is going to vote to reject those
textbooks," Quinn says.
What's more, while the "strengths and weaknesses" language was rather vague, the
new amendments provide publishers with a very specific roadmap for what they have
to include in their textbooks. "It will be much harder for publishers to fudge,"
says Quinn.
Creating a Texas-only edition of a biology textbook would be expensive, which
means other states would probably end up having to use the same scientifically
inaccurate textbooks. "Many publishers are in dire economic straits these days,
so the added expense of making a special edition for one state is not something
they would be eager to take on," says Steven Newton of the National Center for
Science Education. "I think it's likely this would affect other states."
"We're going to be watching and we will make sure that if the textbooks include
junk science, that people know about it," Quinn says. "If other states reject
these books, publishers might stop publishing for Texas because it's so
expensive."
Discovery ties
If that happens, other publishers more friendly to intelligent design (ID) might
fill the breach. The Discovery Institute, the Seattle-based headquarters of the
ID movement, for example, has already published its own biology textbook
entitled Explore Evolution: The arguments for and against Neo-Darwinism.
The book does not explicitly mention ID, but presents its standard arguments,
arguments that are precisely in line with those adopted in the new standards.
That may be no coincidence: one of the co-authors of the book, Ralph Seelke, was
chosen by McLeroy to serve as an expert curriculum reviewer for the Texas board.
So too was Stephen Meyer, director of the Discovery Institute's Center for
Science and Culture. The Discovery Institute's Casey Luskin also testified at
the board meeting, saying, "We urge you to make students aware of these
scientific debates."
"The Discovery Institute is in this up to their eyeballs," says Barbara Forrest,
a philosophy professor at Southeastern Louisiana University and an expert on the
history of creationism. "They are heavily invested in what happens in Texas." In
fact, McLeroy has been working with Discovery Institute fellow Walter Bradley, a
Texan, since at least 2003 to promote changes to the biology textbooks.
==
" Intelligent design (ID) is a dressing up of the old "argument from design,"
with technical jargon added to lend a thin veneer of scientific credibility.
ID advocates' opportunistic tactics, which have more in common with
politicians than scientists, have been described as the "wedge" strategy - an
attempt to gain academic acceptance by maintaining a presence in academic and
scientific venues.
==
Creation Museum
PETERSBURG, Ky.  Tamaki Sato was confused by the dinosaur exhibit.
The placards described the various dinosaurs as originating from
different geological periods  the stegosaurus from the Upper
Jurassic, the heterodontosaurus from the Lower Jurassic, the
velociraptor from the Upper Cretaceous  yet in each case, the date
of demise was the same: around 2348 B.C.
==
Creationist motto
"If science is wrong in any little thing, then it must be wrong about
everything".
==
Science theorizes and tries to understand the world. that's why
'maybe' pops up so often. it is the way people ask questions about
nature. they say 'maybe', then they see if the mechanism we have
developed...natural selection...can explain what we see in nature.
creationism can't do this. faced with the fact of change recorded in
the fossil record and embedded in our very own genetic structure,
creationists can do little but handwave and try to resolve their contradictions.
The relationships between organisms was described by a creationist...Linnaeus,
long before Darwin.
===
The creationists are going to gun after a 150 year old book, and
ignore everything since?
==
http://ncseweb.org/creationism/legal/intelligent-design-trial-kitzmiller-v-dover
==
http://pewforum.org/events/?EventID=217.

Darwin, of course, has been demonized in many places. I think one of the
mistakes maybe weve made is to use the term Darwinism to describe a
fundamental discovery about biology without which you cant really understand
anything in biology at this point. You wouldnt call relativity Einsteinism.
Darwinism sort of makes it sound like it might be a cult, a personality cult,
and probably that hasnt helped in this long history of misunderstanding. So
lets just call it evolution.
Now you might say, looking at this tree, that that doesnt prove anything about
descent from a common ancestor. If you believe that Genesis says that all of
these organisms were created as individual acts of special creation, wouldnt
it have made sense for God to use some of the same DNA motifs, modifying them
along the way? And wouldnt it therefore seem to show you that DNA is more
similar between creatures that look more like each other, so this doesnt prove
anything. And that is actually a defensible point if all you have is this kind
of information.
But when you start looking at the details, that argument really cant be
sustained anymore. I could give you many examples, but Ill just give you one
because of the time. Here is one that I think really cannot be easily
understood without the common ancestor hypothesis being correct and with it
involving humans.
If you look across the genome of ourselves and other species, you find genes
in a particular order with space in between them. Heres a place, for example,
in the human and the cow and the mouse genome where you have the same three
genes. Theyre lined up in the same order, which also is consistent with a
common ancestor, although it doesnt prove it. But I picked these three for a
particular reason. These genes have funny names  so what do they actually do?
Im not going to bother you about two of them, but GULO is an interesting gene.
It codes for an enzyme called gulonolactone oxidase. So what the heck does that
do? That is the enzyme that catalyzes the final step in the synthesis of
vitamin C, ascorbic acid. You probably know that vitamin C is something thats
a vitamin because we need it. We cant make it ourselves, and the reason for
that is that our GULO gene has sustained a knockout blow About half the gene
has been deleted, and theres a little remnant left behind that you can see.
The tail end of it is still evidence that GULO used to be there, but its not
in any of us. In fact, its not there in any primate.
So somewhere higher up in that lineage this happened in a single individual,
and that happened to be spread throughout all of the following organisms,
primates and humans. Thats why we humans get scurvy if we dont have access to
vitamin C. Apparently in most of human history and primate history, there was
plenty of vitamin C in the environment, so there was no great loss sustained
here until we went to sea for long periods of time. Cows and mice dont need
vitamin C; they make their own. They have a GULO gene that works.
Now looking at that, of course, that immediately suggests common ancestry for
all three of these species  not only suggests it, but, it seems to me, demands
it because if youre going to try to argue that the human genome was somehow
special, that God created us in a different way than these other organisms,
you would also have to postulate that God intentionally put a defective gene
in exactly the place where a common ancestry would say it should be. And that
was done why? To test our faith? Does that sound like the action of a God of
all truth? It doesnt seem like it. I could give other examples. But it is
once you look at the details  I think inescapable for somebody with an open
mind to conclude that descent from a common ancestor is true and were part of
it.
Despite that, we have issues, especially here in the U.S., about what people
believe about this question. You all probably have seen the Gallup Poll that
gets asked every year  and we could debate whether the questions are asked in
a way that elucidates what people really think. But given the choice among
three options, what do people say?
That first option, that God guided a process that happened over millions of
years  38 percent; the second option, that God had no part, that being a deist
or an atheist perspective  13 percent. But the largest number  45 percent,
almost half  choose the third option, that God created human beings in their
present form in the last 10,000 years. You cant arrive at that conclusion
without throwing out pretty much all of the evidence from cosmology, geology,
paleontology, biology, physics, chemistry, genomics and the fossil record. Yet
that is the conclusion that many Americans prefer.
The history for that is really interesting. If you have time, read Ron Numbers
book called The Creationists, which goes through how it is that over the last
150 years this has become the accepted position for many evangelical
Christians, who are taught if thats not your view, then youre probably in
danger of a slippery slope that will cause you ultimately to lose your faith.
When I spoke in Nashville at a gathering of youth group leaders and youth
pastors from mostly evangelical churches last fall, I conducted the same poll
of about 7,000 people gathered in the arena. In that instance 90 percent chose
the last option. Maybe they raised their hands because they were worried about
who was watching them and they felt like that was supposed to be the answer.
Maybe in their minds they were thinking, yeah, I dont really know. But we are
in a funny spot here in that this has become so widely embraced.
There are a lot of forces that are trying to encourage that view. If youve
been to the Creation Museum  I havent, but I gather some of you have  it will
show you this perspective of humans and dinosaurs frolicking together in a way
thats consistent in Ken Hams view with the 6,000-year-old Earth. Again, many
children going to see this are probably walking away thinking, yeah, that
makes sense.
I get e-mails practically every week from people who were raised in this
tradition and perhaps have been to the Creation Museum  many of them home
schooled or schooled in a Christian high school where young Earth creationism
is the only view that theyre exposed to. Then they get to university and they
see the actual data that supports the age of the Earth as 4.5, 5 billion years
old, and they see the data that supports evolution as being correct, and they
go into an intense personal crisis because they figure that if what they were
told about origins from the pulpit and in Sunday school and from their parents
and from their Christian high school is wrong, then why should they believe the
rest of it? Yet these are often people whose faith is a deep and important part
of who they are. Weve set those folks up for a terrible struggle by what were
doing right now in this country.
Francis Collins
==
Now it is all explained
The source of water for the flood was most certainly
a series of worm holes, probably multiple ones strategically
placed throughout oceans and large bodies of water.
There are further advantages to this understanding. We
can now return to the notion of a laminar flood theory
although with a workable source for the required water.
Again we can invoke fresh water floating over the heavier
brine yielding minimal disruption of the oceans.
The waters rose gradually providing minimal erosion.
The turbulence of the erupting water would have
produced significant evaporation providing the water
witnessed as rain for 40 days and 40 nights.
After the flood, we also need to do something to
clear out the water. On this, there is less evidence
to go by other than the mentioned wind. This
can suggest again multiple worm holes, perhaps
as both exits for water rich atmospheres and dry
air as replinishments. Certainly worm holes that
functioned both as significant air inputs and air
exits would create a great deal of wind as the
witnesses have told us.
==
Dover  case
They did a find and replace for "creationism" and "god" and replaced
it with "intelligent design" and "an intelligent designer" and called it a
totally different theory

Judge Jones wrote. The inescapable truth is that both [Alan] Bonsell
and [William] Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions.  Bonsell
repeatedly failed to testify in a truthful manner.  Defendants have
unceasingly attempted in vain to distance themselves from their own actions
and statements, which culminated in repetitious, untruthful testimony.
Quoting the judge  It is ironic that several of these
individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions
in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the
real purpose behind the ID Policy.
The darling book of the Discovery Institute in which the founder states
that ID'er is the God of the bible
==
Denis Alexander,"Creation or Evolution:Do we have to choose."
==
If you take Genesis as literal, then you have to take it in context with
Genesis 1:14-18 which has the sun, moon and stars in the expanse,
which would put them below the waters that are above the expanse.
==
WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE NEW TEXAS STANDARDS
Writing in The Earth Scientist, the journal of the National Earth
Science Teachers Association, NCSE's Steven Newton explains in detail
what's wrong with the new state science standards adopted in Texas in
March 2009, focusing on the Earth and Space Science standards in
particular. At the behest of the creationist faction on the state
board of education, references to the specific age of the universe,
common descent, and evolution were removed, and language that
misleadingly suggests that established scientific results are in doubt
was introduced. Newton concludes, "Although the original ESS standards
were based on strong science and outlined an excellent course in earth
sciences, a number of creationist and anti-science amendments have
weakened the ESS standards and disrespected the hard work and
expertise of the writing team. The standards are finalized and in
place, bad amendments and all. The struggle for science education in
Texas now shifts to the adoption of textbooks in 2011, when these
deeply-flawed amendments may be used to force a creationist agenda
into Texas science classrooms."
==
I realized early on that it is detailed scientific knowledge which makes
certain religious beliefs untenable. A knowledge of the true age of the earth
and of the fossil record makes it impossible for any balanced intellect to
believe in the literal truth of every part of the Bible in the way that
fundamentalists do. And if some of the Bible is manifestly wrong, why should
any of the rest of it be accepted automatically? . . . What could be more
foolish than to base one's entire view of life on ideas that, however
plausible at the time, now appear to be quite erroneous? And what would be
more important than to find our true place in the universe by removing one by
one these unfortunate vestiges of earlier beliefs??
Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery, 1988
==
Exodus 20:11 - for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea,
and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore the LORD
blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it.
==
In 1982, the Southern Baptist Convention issued a resolution rejecting the
theory of evolution and stating that creation science "can be presented
solely in terms of scientific evidence without any religious doctrines or
concepts." Some Southern Baptist leaders have spoken out in favor of the
intelligent design movement.

In 1969, the Presbyterian Church's governing body amended its previous
position on evolution, which was originally drafted in the 19th century,
to affirm that evolution and the Bible do not contradict each other. Still,
the church has stated that it "should carefully refrain from either
affirming or denying the theory of evolution," and church doctrine
continues to hold that man is a unique creation by God.
==
What scientific journals are
proponents of intelligent design trying to publish in? And what
exactly would they publish that is appropriate for a scientific
journal, anyway? The material I have heard doesn't seem appropriate
for a biology journal, because it has nothing to do with biology. Nor
does seem appropriate for an evolutionary journal, because it has
nothing to do with evolution.
==
Texas
A major concern of the senators voting against McLeroy's confirmation
was his attempts to undermine the treatment of evolution in the state
science standards. Eliot Shapleigh (D-District 29), for example,
questioned his endorsement of a book that describes parents who want
their kids to learn about evolution as "monsters," scientists as
"atheists," and clergy who see no conflict between science and faith
as "morons." McLeroy is, notoriously, a creationist himself, as the
Austin American-Statesman (March 8, 2009) described in detail.

http://us.mc806.mail.yahoo.com/
==
"And God saw that the dinosaurs of the earth could never know His glory.
"And it repented the LORD that he had made dinosaurs on the earth, and
it grieved him at his heart.
"And the LORD said, I will destroy dinosaurs whom I have created from
the face of the earth; both carnivorous, and herbivorous; and the winged
reptiles of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."
-- The Holy Bible, Revised Scientific Version, 2109 C.E.
==
Geocentrist creationist Gerardus Bouw says terrible things about the
character and actions of Kepler).
==
Philip Johnson have even admitted that they never had the intelligent design
science to teach to school kids that they claimed to have.
==
Up to the 16th and part of the 17th century the popular explanation
for the motion of planets was that angels were pushing them. This was
questioned by scientists and finally dismissed by Newton's Theory of
One of the main reason the Church opposition to
the heliocentric models was the claim that these models were too much
mechanicistic, that they made God unnecessary and therefore they would
have lead to atheism and hence social collapse
==
http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html
==
Intellectual results of creationism

So too the promise of God is with the rainbow. Which rainbow> The
first one? All rainbows? rainbows with rain? Or rainbows without rain?
You miss the science and do not see. It promises that the sphere of
water is no longer there to rain 40 days. It does not say never again
can this sphere of water cover all mountains again, because that 40
feet of water didnt cover all mountains as an ocean (the ocean covered
the mountains, not the 40 feet of water canopy). Yet this is redundant
because a rain and flow of rain as water over all the Earth is indeed
cpovering the whole Earth by 40 feet as it flows off the mountains.
The reson the prediction is of fire is because all religions say the
stars will fall from the sky. And that is because they did that in the
Flood. But the fire of that asteroid impact which broke up into
millions of stars falling down on the earth, was a fire that was put
out by that rain and by that ocean. It is assumed there will be no
flood again because of the water canopy being gone (as proven by
rainbow from direct light beams). But the rain isnt what covered the
mountains. The land plates collapsed 2 miles down into ocean for 5
months (everytime 12 hours that the moon came around with low tide the
land plates collapsed from melted mantle below dropping another 40
feet, 80 feet per day for 150 days). That totals over 2 miles. Then
the plates rose the next 7 months until Ararat which was once 2 miles
high was now 3 miles high. And where that air was once double pressure
at sea level, and single 14.5 pounds psi pressure at mountain peaks,
it was now current pressure without water on top of it so that as the
continents rose the air got thin and they had to leave the ark. And
winter set in because it was December 1 (Gregorian Nov 11). This is
why when we get hit by an asteroid and you see the fire, you will not
listen is the prediction and you will drown 7 days later while those
saved have gone to the mountains. I have no trouble with every
telemarketer taking this advice, every collection agent listening to
me, and phone call i get for any purpose hears me out and says amen.
Why is it you people do not have their same heart?
==
Why *did your god hide his global flood with multiple miracles,
which were, in turn, hidden by others? What's the point?
==
Just as gravity works and can be verified today without any references to
Newton, evolution works and can be verified true today without any
references to Darwin.
As relativity is an established fact, and we need no reference to Einstein
to observe and prove that fact.
==
A literal interpretation of Genesis.
Orthodox Christians since at least Augustine have understood that
Genesis is not factual. Jews since at least Philo have understood the same.
==
The notion that a certain intelligent, purpose-driven person explains the
existence of intelligent, purpose-driven people, doesn't actually explain
anything.
==
Science has learned more about the universe in 100 years than
supernaturalists did in 2000
==
"The head of a tapeworm has four suckers and two rings of hooks. The
body of a Tapeworms is in segments (pieces that are like each other).
Each segment can produce eggs . Little segments of the tapeworm
sometimes break off and pass out through the stool of the host, with
the eggs. Little segments of its body fall off. They go out of the
host body and when they get into another host that segment becomes a
tape worm."
Clearly the tapeworm was designed by an Intelligent Designer, for
there is no way that it could have just "evolved" those suckers and
hooks, because the design is TOO COMPLEX to have just arisen "by
chance". There is NO WAY that each segment could produce eggs and then
fall off just BY CHANCE! Only a loving God could have designed the
tapeworm in such a way to maximize its chances for success in this world!
==
Milton, Richard   Shattering the Myths of Darwinism. Park Street Press,
Rochester, VT (1997)
==
Fundie motto
Science does not know everything for certain, therefore it knows
nothing at all?
==
The problem here is not that people choose to disagree with science
because of their religious beliefs. The problem is that it is simply
wrong to distort and misrepresent the scientific facts as motivated by
religious belief, and then falsely claim that these religion-motivated
attacks on science are "scientific". They are not scientific -
intelligent design advocates are not actually doing any professional
science research that supports that their views (including their
anti-evolution views) are actually scientific - and, well, it is just
wrong to tell kids in public school science classes that something is
when it just isn't. This is a clear-cut case of doing the right thing
by our kids in public schools and teaching what really is science in
science classes, while deliberately telling religious ideologues who
are attacking evolutionary science as motivated by their particular
religious beliefs to take a hike and stop trying to mislead children
(and the Kitzmiller case in Pennsylvania in 2005 backs all of this
up). Notice that intelligent design advocates can't get their nonsense
against science past professional scientists - so instead they play
games trying to fool people who are less familiar with the actual
science in order to fill children's minds with false ideas about
science. These kinds of tactics seem to me to be obviously wrong and
dishonest.
==
"DON'T MESS WITH TEXTBOOKS"

Writing in Seed, NCSE's Joshua Rosenau explains what the new Texas
state science standards mean for science education nationwide.
Rosenau, who attended (and blogged from) both the January and the
March meetings of the Texas state board of education, writes, "Despite
our efforts, after a total of 24 hours of testimony in three separate
hearings, pro-evolution moderates brokered a compromise with the
board's seven creationists. Heeding McLeroy's cry that 'someone's got
to stand up to experts!,' the board approved standards that promote
creationism's mantra of 'sudden appearance' of new species, echo
creationist beliefs that the complexity of the cell cannot be
scientifically explained, and mandate that students study 'different
views on the existence of global warming.'"
In the wake of the adoption of the flawed standards in Texas, Rosenau
explains, "Textbook publishers are already preparing for hearings in
2011, which will judge whether rewritten textbooks fit the new
standards. Textbook author and biologist [and NCSE Supporter] Ken
Miller and publisher Rene LeBel both say they'll abide by the letter,
but not the spirit, of the standards; for instance, by fulfilling the
requirement to cover 'all sides of scientific evidence' without
including creationist pseudoscience. Miller, a vocal defender of
evolution education, insists that 'biology textbook authors will all
stand together on evolution,' refusing to include creationist attacks
or to drop good science."
But it isn't only the authors and publishers of textbooks that are
preparing to defend the integrity of science education, and it isn't
only in Texas -- as Rosenau relates, "The NCSE recently worked with a
family and local professors to give a student in Washington the
courage to denounce his teacher's creationist lectures. He won not
only the school's support but also a college scholarship from the
ACLU." The lesson to be learned from the experience of those fighting
for the integrity of science education, whether in Texas, Washington,
or wherever it is under assault, Rosenau concludes: "It doesn't take
an expert to stand up for science. Whether the battle is large or
small, success depends on these types of broad coalitions."

For Rosenau's article in Seed, visit:
http://seedmagazine .com/content/ article/dont_ mess_with_ textbooks/

ALABAMA ANTIEVOLUTION BILL DIES

When the Alabama legislative session ended on May 15, 2009, House Bill
300, the so-called Academic Freedom Act, died in committee. If
enacted, HB 300 would have purportedly protected "the right of
teachers identified by the United States Supreme Court in Edwards v.
Aguillard to present scientific critiques of prevailing scientific
theories" and "the right of students to hold a position on views
[sic]." Previous similar antievolution bills in Alabama -- HB 923 in
2008; HB 106 and SB 45 in 2006; HB 352, SB 240, and HB 716 in 2005; HB
391 and SB 336 in 2004 -- failed to win passage. In 2004, a cosponsor
of SB 336 told the Montgomery Advertiser (February 18, 2004), "This
bill will level the playing field because it allows a teacher to bring
forward the biblical creation story of humankind."

For NCSE's previous coverage of events in Alabama, visit:
http://ncseweb. org/news/ alabama

ANTIEVOLUTION BILL DEAD IN MISSOURI

When the Missouri legislative session ended on May 15, 2009, House
Bill 656 died, without ever having been assigned to a committee. If
enacted, HB 656 would have required state and local education
administrators to permit teachers to "to help students understand,
analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific
strengths and scientific weaknesses of theories of biological and
chemical evolution." Otherwise a typical instance of the current spate
of antievolution "academic freedom" bills, HB 656 was interestingly
expansive about what it was not intended to do: "this section shall
not be construed to promote philosophical naturalism or biblical
theology, promote natural cause or intelligent cause, promote
undirected change or purposeful design, promote atheistic or theistic
belief, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of
religious beliefs or ideas, or promote discrimination for or against
religion or nonreligion. Scientific information includes physical
evidence and logical inferences based upon evidence."

The chief sponsor of HB 656 was Robert Wayne Cooper (R-District 155),
joined by Mike Sutherland (R-District 99), Ed Emery (R-District 126),
Therese Sander (R-District 22), Brian Nieves (R-District 98), and
Stanley Cox (R-District 118). Cooper was the sponsor of numerous
failed antievolution bills in the past. In 2008, he introduced the
similar HB 2554. In 2006, he introduced HB 1266, which if enacted
would have required that "If a theory or hypothesis of biological
origins is taught, a critical analysis of such theory or hypothesis
shall be taught in a substantive amount." In 2004, he introduced two
bills, HB 911 and HB 1722, that called for equal time for "intelligent
design" in Missouri's public schools. HB 911 moreover contained
idiosyncratic definitions of various scientific and philosophical
terms as well as the draconian provision, "Willful neglect of any
elementary or secondary school superintendent, principal, or teacher
to observe and carry out the requirements of this section shall be
cause for termination of his or her contract."

For NCSE's previous coverage of events in Missouri, visit:
http://ncseweb. org/news/ missouri
==
Glenn Morton is a a recovering
creationist, formerly associated with ICR. He learned geology and
realized that everything he'd learned as a fundie was wrong. His story
is at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm
==
The ICR: Failing to prepare people for reality since 1970.
==
Teach the controversy
Let them have their "debate".

"Here we are kids, first let me show you the evidence for the origin of
species through natural selection. You will notice that there is peer
reviewed evidence amounting to ... well to be honest, too much to read in a
life time. But it can be shown that it has a testable hypothesis, known as
the Theory of Evolution. It has laws such as the laws of Genetics,
Inheritance and several others. And it has been observed and tested.
Now let us review the evidence for 'Creationism'... .
OK one has to admit there isn't any. No testable hypothesis. No, none at
all. No peer reviewed evidence. Nothing! Zilch. Along with no theory, no
laws and no observed tests. All it has is some vague ideas from a two
thousand year old book of known inconsistency, inaccuracy and dubious moral
value."

Will that do?
==
When Falwell first announced that Stein would be delivering this years
Commencement address, he said: His work in exposing how fraudulent
science is being used in this country to destroy freedom and advance
tyrannical social and political agendas deserves our attention and respect.
==
Creationists are not after scientific support; they want emotional
support. They have a great deal of conviction in their beliefs, but no
genuine faith. They believe in a god which would cease to exist if a
piece of bone really is >50,000 years old, or if civilization passed
through the time of the Deluge unscathed, or if the Pentateuch had more
than one author, or if any number of other details don't match what they
have been taught. And without that god, their life is worthless.
==
Bishop James Ussher [1581-1656], Anglican Archbishop of Armagh, Primate of
All Ireland, is Renia's cousin.
He was a staunch, stalwart Calvinist and calculated that the Creation began
at nightfall preceding Sunday, 23 October 4004 B.C.
He was given a state funeral and buried in the chapel of Saint Erasmus in
Westminster Abbey on the orders of Oliver Cromwell.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James Ussher
==
Slaughter of the Dissidents (Paperback) by Dr. Jerry Bergman
People who oppose evolution
==
A controversial Alberta bill will enshrine into law the rights of
parents to pull their children out of classes discussing the topics of evolution
and homosexuality.
The new rules, which would require schools to notify parents in
advance of "subject-matter that deals explicitly with religion,
sexuality or sexual orientation," is buried in a bill that extends
human rights to homosexuals. Parents can ask for their child to be
excluded from the discussion.
"This government supports a very, very fundamental right and that is
parental rights with respect to education," said Premier Ed Stelmach.
Although Stelmach has confirmed the bill will give parents the
authority to exclude their kids from classes if the topic of evolution
comes up, Education Minister Dave Hancock said it won't change anything.
==
"Tens of millions of Americans, who neither know nor understand the actual
arguments for or even against evolution, march in the army of the night with
their Bibles held high. And they are a strong and frightening force,
impervious to, and immunized against, the feeble lance of mere reason."
--Isaac Asimov
==
U of Minnesota study finds high school teachers influence student views of
evolution & creationism
College students' views about evolution and creationism are often shaped by
what they learned in their high school biology classes, according to a
University of Minnesota study published in the May issue of BioScience, the
journal of the American Institute of Biological Sciences.
Co-authors Randy Moore and Sehoya Cotner, professors in the College of
Biological Sciences, surveyed 1,000 students taking introductory biology
classes at the University of Minnesota to learn how biology majors view
evolution compared to non-majors. Results showed that the two groups' views
were similar and revealed that high school biology teachers influence whether
majors and non-majors college students accept evolution or question it based
on creationism.
About two thirds of students from both groups said their high school biology
class included evolution and not creationism. Only 1 to 2 percent of classes
covered creationism and not evolution. And 6 to 13 percent of classes did not
cover either evolution or creationism. But 29 percent of majors and 21 percent
of non-majors said their high school biology class covered both evolution and
creationism.
Students whose high school biology class included creationism (with or without
evolution) were more likely to accept creationist views as entering college
students. Similarly, students exposed to evolutionism but not creationism were
more likely to accept evolution in college. For example, 72 to 78 percent of
students exposed to evolution only agreed that it is scientifically valid
while 57 to 59 percent of students who were exposed to creationism agreed that
it can be validated.
"I've long known that many biology teachers teach creationism, but was
surprised to learn they have such a strong impact," said Randy Moore,
professor of biology and lead author. "It's unfortunate that so many teachers
think their religious beliefs are science. Teachers who don't teach evolution
deny students the understanding of one of the greatest principles in history."
==
WHAT'S NEW IN ACSI V. STEARNS
The appeal of Association of Christian Schools International et al. v.
Roman Stearns et al. is wending its way through the appeals process,
with the University of California system submitting its responsive
brief, and a number of organizations submitting amicus curiae briefs,
in April 2009. The case, originally filed in federal court in Los
Angeles on August 25, 2005, centers on the University of California
system's policies and statements relevant to evaluating the
qualifications of applicants for admission. The plaintiffs -- the
Association of Christian Schools International, the Calvary Chapel
Christian School in Murrieta, California, and a handful of students at
the school -- charged that the university system violated the
constitutional rights of applicants from Christian schools whose high
school coursework is deemed inadequate preparation for college. The
defendants prevailed on August 8, 2008, but the plaintiffs promptly
appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Although creationism is not the only issue in the case, it is a
prominent part of it. The plaintiffs object, inter alia, to the
university system's policy of rejecting high school biology courses
that use creationist textbooks -- Biology: God's Living Creation,
published by A Beka Books, and Biology for Christian Schools,
published by Bob Jones University Press -- as "inconsistent with the
viewpoints and knowledge generally accepted in the scientific
community." Michael Behe, a proponent of "intelligent design"
creationism, served as an expert witness for the plaintiffs, although
his defense of the creationist biology textbooks was unavailing.
Wendell Bird, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, is a former
employee of the Institute for Creation Research; he defended
Louisiana's 1981 "equal time" act all the way to the Supreme Court,
where it was ruled to violate the Establishment Clause in the decision
in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987).
In its appeal of the August 2008 decision, filed on January 26, 2009,
the plaintiffs asserted that the University of California system "has
rejected a large number of biology courses because, despite their
standard content, they added a religious viewpoint" (p. 21), which
"constitutes viewpoint discrimination, content discrimination, and
content-based regulation, which conflict with the First Amendment" (p.
24). In their reply, filed on April 10, 2009, the defendants replied
that the courses were rejected because they used the creationist
textbooks as their primary texts, and a review of those textbooks
"concluded they were inappropriate for use as primary texts in college
preparatory science courses due to their characterizations of
religious doctrine as scientific evidence, scientific inaccuracies,
failure to encourage critical thinking, and overall un-scientific
approach" (p. 21) -- a judgment with which Donald Kennedy and NCSE
Supporter Francisco Ayala, experts for the defendants, concurred.
Two amicus curiae briefs -- one from the American Center for Law and
Justice, the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, the
Common Good Foundation, and the Seventh-day Adventist Church State
Council; the other from the National Legal Foundation -- have been
filed on behalf of the plaintiffs; neither discusses creationism. Four
amicus curiae briefs -- from the American Historical Association &
Organization of American Historians, the American Association of
University Professors, the California Council of Science and
Technology, and the California State University system and the
University of Nevada, Las Vegas -- have been filed on behalf of the
defendants. Of these, only the California Council of Science and
Technology's brief discusses creationism, which is perhaps not
surprising, since the brief was coauthored by attorneys from Pepper
Hamilton LLP who were part of the legal team representing the
plaintiffs in Kitzmiller v. Dover, the 2005 case over "intelligent
design" creationism.
The summary of the argument from the California Council of Science and
Technology's amicus brief (pp. 3-4) deserves full quotation:
As a public institution of higher education, UC has the responsibility
to produce college graduates who have satisfied its rigorous academic
standards in all relevant disciplines, including science. In order to
fulfill this responsibility, UC must be allowed to choose among
applicants for admission into the UC system based on the applicants'
demonstrated understanding of important foundational concepts. In the
area of science, two such foundational concepts are the nature of
science and the theory of evolution. UC acted appropriately in not
giving "d" credit to certain high school science courses that used the
Biology for Christian Schools and Biology: God's Living Creation
textbooks because these textbooks do not teach either concept in an
appropriate manner and in fact advance fundamental misconceptions
about both concepts. Students educated with these textbooks will not
be adequately prepared for science courses at UC.

The need for high-quality post-secondary science education has never
been greater, either in California or the United States as a whole.
Science and technology are recognized as key economic drivers.
Unfortunately, both California and the United States are losing ground
in these critical areas, in large part because of the inability of
colleges and universities to produce enough highly qualified science
and technology graduates. The prosperity of the state and nation in
the 21st century depends on the reversal of this trend and the
production of more university graduates well educated in science and
technology. In light of this critical need, UC should be encouraged to
take all reasonable measures to ensure that the students admitted into
the UC system have a solid grounding in foundational scientific
concepts upon matriculation.
The brief, along with all of the documents mentioned here, is
available on NCSE's website, in a special section devoted to ACSI v.
Stearns.

For information about the case, visit:
http://ncseweb. org/creationism/ legal/asci- v-stearns
==
The creationist argument here is a direct attempt to cut the very heart out of
science. Science isn't about direct observations. If we could learn everything
we needed to know from direct observations, we wouldn't need science at all.
Science is all about learning things beyond direct observations. Science is
about extrapolating patterns, looking beyond the surface, and taking evidence
beyond what we can merely see.
To demand that something isn't "proven" (a word that has no place in science)
without direct observation is to declare that science itself is worthless. It
is an absolutely anti-science statement. It is a firm declaration, "I am
opposed to science in all forms and will not stand for it!"
==
The Institute for Creation Research has taken its fight to train future
science teachers to the courthouse.
The Dallas-based creationist group alleges that its civil rights were violated
by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. Last year, the state agency
denied the institute permission to offer a master's degree in science
education, saying the program did not meet state academic standards.
The lawsuit, filed last week in U.S. District Court, alleges that the
coordinating board discriminated against the institute because of its views on
evolution.
Raymund Paredes, the state's higher education commissioner, has said that the
proposed master's program would not prepare future educators to teach science
standards in Texas public school classrooms.
Institute leaders have said they would teach both the creationist and
evolutionist views, but that their group favors the former.
==
The Oklahoma GOP drafted a new party platform. included in it is this clause
"7. We believe that the scientific evidence supporting Biblical creation
should be included in Oklahoma public schools curricula, and if any evolution
theory is taught, that both should receive equal funding, class time, and
material. Teachers should have the freedom to cover creation science without
fear of intimidation, reprimand, or lack of professional respect.
==
Life is FAR too complicated to be by intelligent design.
==
Similarly, the child brain is preprogrammed by natural selection to obey and
believe what parents and other adults tell it. In general, it's a good thing
that child brains should be susceptible to being taught what to do and what to
believe by adults. But this necessarily carries the down side that bad ideas,
useless ideas, waste of time ideas like rain dances and other religious customs,
will also be passed down the generations. The child brain is very susceptible to
this kind of infection. And it also spreads sideways by cross infection when a
charismatic preacher goes around infecting new minds that were previously
uninfected.
==
As a book reviews editor at New Scientist, I often come across so-called
science books which after a few pages reveal themselves to be harbouring
ulterior motives. I have learned to recognise clues that the author is pushing
a religious agenda. As creationists in the US continue to lose court battles
over attempts to have intelligent design taught as science in federally funded
schools, their strategy has been forced to... well, evolve. That means ensuring
that references to pseudoscientific concepts like ID are more heavily veiled.
So I thought I'd share a few tips for spotting what may be religion in
science's clothing.
Red flag number one: the term "scientific materialism" . "Materialism" is
most often used in contrast to something else - something non-material, or
supernatural. Proponents of ID frequently lament the scientific claim that
humans are the product of purely material forces. At the same time, they never
define how non-material forces might work. I have yet to find a definition that
characterises non-materialism by what it is, rather than by what it is not.
The invocation of Cartesian dualism - where the brain and mind are viewed as
two distinct entities, one material and the other immaterial - is also a red
flag. And if an author describes the mind, or any biological system for that
matter, as "irreducibly complex", let the alarm bells ring.
Misguided interpretations of quantum physics are a classic hallmark of
pseudoscience, usually of the New Age variety, but some religious groups are
now appealing to aspects of quantum weirdness to account for free will.
Beware: this is nonsense.
When you come across the terms "Darwinism" or "Darwinists" , take heed. True
scientists rarely use these terms, and instead opt for "evolution" and
"biologists" , respectively. When evolution is described as a "blind, random,
undirected process", be warned. While genetic mutations may be random, natural
selection is not. When cells are described as "astonishingly complex molecular
machines", it is generally by breathless supporters of ID who take the
metaphor literally and assume that such a "machine" requires an "engineer". If
an author wishes for "academic freedom", it is usually ID code for "the
acceptance of creationism" .
If an author wishes for 'academic freedom', it is usually code for 'the
acceptance of creationism'
Some general sentiments are also red flags. Authors with religious motives
make shameless appeals to common sense, from the staid - "There is nothing we
can be more certain of than the reality of our sense of self" (James Le Fanu
in Why Us?) - to the silly - "Yer granny was an ape!" (creationist blogger
Denyse O'Leary). If common sense were a reliable guide, we wouldn't need
science in the first place.
Religiously motivated authors also have a bad habit of linking the cultural
implications of a theory to the truth-value of that theory. The ID crowd, for
instance, loves to draw a line from Darwin to the Holocaust, as they did in
the "documentary" film Expelled: No intelligence allowed. Even if such an
absurd link were justified, it would have zero relevance to the question of
whether or not the theory of evolution is correct. Similarly, when Le Fanu
writes that Darwin's On the Origin of Species "articulated the desire of many
scientists for an exclusively materialist explanation of natural history that
would liberate it from the sticky fingers of the theological inference that
the beauty and wonder of the natural world was direct evidence for 'A
Designer'", his statement has no bearing on the scientific merits of evolution.
It is crucial to the public's intellectual health to know when science
really is science. Those with a religious agenda will continue to disguise
their true views in their effort to win supporters, so please read between the
lines.
==
DEALING WITH "SCIENTIFIC" CREATIONISTS
An effective response to the political, social, and educational
aspirations of so-called "scientific" creationists requires first an
understanding of the creation model and of creationist aims. Only
with this knowledge can one have some chance of success. One should,
in fact, go to great lengths to avoid misrepresenting the creationist
position. Paradoxically, one must also go to great lengths to not too
easily buy into the creationist definition of the issues. One would
do best by seeking to understand accurately what creationists are
saying while, at the same time, seeking to learn their hidden motives
and agendas. This is not easy. If it were, the creation-evolution
controversy might no longer be with us.
One way to get a clear definition of creationism and the creation
model is to go directly to the leading creationist source materials.
These include books like Henry Morris' Scientific Creationism and
Richard Bliss' Origins: Two Models, as well as Walter T. Brown's
pamphlet, The Scientific Case for Creation: 127 Categories of Evidence
(or whatever number of categories he is up to by now). For short and
succinct definitions of creationism one cannot do better than to read
the Statement of Belief subscribed to by all members of the Creation
Research Society or the definition of "creation-science" appearing in
Section 4 of Arkansas Act 590 of 1981. All these explanations of
creationism were authored by leading creationists themselves during
moments of candor. That there are some who call themselves
creationists who do not honestly subscribe to all the stated positions
is important to know. But this should never cause one to lose sight
of the fact that it is those who do subscribe to all of the stated
positions who are at the forefront of politicized creationism. It is
their demands that threaten the integrity of public school education,
and even scientific research. For convenience, I will quote the
definition of "creation-science" appearing in Arkansas Act 590.

Creation-science includes the scientific evidences and related
inferences that indicate:

(1) Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from
nothing;

(2) The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in
bringing about development of all living kinds from a single
organism;

(3) Changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds
of plants and animals;

(4) Separate ancestry for man and apes;

(5) Explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism,
including the occurrence of a worldwide flood; and

(6) A relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds.

All these items are rendered more precise in the leading
creationist textbooks designed for public school use. In particular,
these books suggest that the universe itself is only 6,000 to 20,000
years old, that all life forms were created at about the same time,
and that a worldwide flood a few thousand years ago is responsible for
the lion's share of the fossil record. Such is an outline of what
militant creationists want taught in public schools whenever
evolutionary concepts are presented. The fact that the 1981 Louisiana
creationism law, which was later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court,
offers no definition of creation-science is irrelevant. It is
substantially the same law as that passed in Arkansas the same year,
1981, and has the same original author, one Paul Ellwanger who made it
his personal campaign to get his "model bill" before as many state
legislatures as he could. The Louisiana law was, then, basically the
"model bill" with the definitions conveniently removed by Louisiana
legislators.

Once one is armed with a clear definition of the creation model,
it is next important to understand creationist political aims. Not
everyone knows what all of these are. Most people are familiar with
the demand for equal time, also known as "balanced treatment," in
public school science courses. But how many are aware that
creationists also have designs on world history courses and other
subjects of study?

In 1976, Creation-Life Publishers and Mott Media co-published a
creationist history textbook by Albert Hyma and Mary Stanton entitled
Streams of Civilization. In it, the student learns that the earth is
a mere ten thousand years old, that most geological formations are the
result of a worldwide flood, that survivors of this flood escaped in
Noah's ark, that humans and dinosaurs once lived together, that all
races and civilizations originated in Mesopotamia after the flood, and
that human languages had a supernatural origin at the Tower of Babel.
There is more, but this is a sampling from a book that describes
itself in the Foreword as "a truly objective textbook on world
history, suitable for use in both public schools and private schools."

Most of us are familiar with the Religious Right attacks on
various aspects of public education, from sex education to social
studies, from the nurse's office to the school library. That this is
also an aspect of the creationist movement was made in the January,
1980, Creation-Science Report published by the Creation-Science
Research Center in San Diego, California. There, various courses of
study were criticized for lacking a creationist viewpoint. One
statement said it all: "As theists and creationists, possessing equal
rights and privileges under the Constitution and Federal Civil Rights
legislation, we can set forth creationist position papers on any and
all problems affecting public morals or health, domestic or foreign
policy, whenever government funding is required."

Of course, this takes us even beyond the public schools
themselves. Other leading creationists advocate positions equally
broad. Paul Ellwanger has a model federal bill that calls for equal
research grants for creation research, equal public museum exhibits
for creation-science, and equal national park coverage of creationist
interpretations of geological formations. Some action was actually
taken in these directions when, in 1978, creationists sued the
Smithsonian Institution for promoting "secular humanism" by having an
evolution display at public expense without a balancing Genesis
exhibit. Even though the creationists lost their case, other museums
have since come under attack. Even teacher training and certification
have been target areas. Again I quote from the January 1980
Creation-Science Report: "Luther Sunderland has been working with the
New York Board of Regents to have included questions on the creation
model in the Board of Regents exam for teachers. This would force a
change in teacher training." The fact that Sunderland (now deceased)
was unsuccessful does not mean that creationists have given up. And
the fact that creationist utterances are less bold than they used to
be does not mean that creationist positions or goals have changed.

There is, however, a new emphasis in creationist attacks on
public education. Less is said now about the creation model, and more
is made of a demand for "full disclosure" of all the arguments and
evidences against evolution. Creationists maintain that recent
controversies over such things as punctuated equilibria and
cladistics demonstrate that it is something of a "club secret" among
scientists that evolution is bankrupt. Creationists, therefore, demand
that the dirty little secret be revealed to public school science
students and that candor replace propaganda in textbooks. Like
earlier arguments for "fairness" and "balanced treatment" for the
creation model, the current arguments for this "openness" and
"honesty" appeal to popular sentiment. And, as always, the creation-
ists are waiting in the wings to be delegated to translate these
terms into public and educational policy. They are the ones in
possession of the "truth" that supposedly scientists know but aren't
telling. They have the "correct" interpretations of the evidence and
the best understandings of current controversies. So, in their
view, it is the anti-evolution version of the story that should be
added to the curriculum.

Of course, I have always supported teaching students about
punctuated equilibria, cladistics, and the like. This would make
science education more comprehensive and state-of-the-art. It would
also guarantee that more time was spent covering scientific material
on evolution. But I would prefer to let scientists speak for
themselves rather than through the filter of a creationist
anti-evolutionary polemic. And if creationists would lay off the
pressure on science educators, pressure which promotes reduced
coverage of this material, then students would, at long last, have the
opportunity to learn about these modern scientific controversies. As
I have indicated, properly understanding creationist positions and
aims is important for dealing effectively with creationism. But that
is not all one needs to know. One needs to also have a working
knowledge of the most common creationist strategies.

Creationists themselves have written pamphlets clearly spelling
these out. Two leading titles are: Introducing Scientific
Creationism into the Public Schools by Henry Morris, and How to Teach
Origins without ACLU Interference by John N. Moore. Packets of fiery
material can be acquired from the Gabler's in Texas and the Pro-Family
Forum. The National Association of Christian Educators offers
something akin to a "party plan" wherein interested parents are to get
together with their friends over tea, plan a big banquet meeting at a
local restaurant, invite a leading speaker from the central
organization to come lecture at the banquet and get everybody fired
up, and then get active as a parent group, utilizing the information
and techniques provided by the central organization. Most of these
materials, which should be read, instruct parents to join with other
like-minded citizens, confront their children's teachers, confront the
school principal, address the PTA and school board, testify at state
board of education meetings and textbook selection hearings, donate
creationist books to the school library, sponsor debates, and promote
creation seminars for teachers. Sympathetic school administrators,
teachers, scientists, and pastors are encouraged to join in these
efforts, with teachers being especially requested to introduce
creationism into their own classrooms "no matter what the course
subject or grade level may be." Students are encouraged to raise
creationist questions in class and bring the subject into their
speeches, papers, and class projects.

Given the nature, designs, and strategy of the modern creationist
movement, what actions can scientists and science educators take that
will be effective? There are a number of things that have worked well
in the past. Here are some examples for scientists and science
teachers.

1. If you are a member of a scientific organization that has not
issued an official statement on the creation-evolution controversy,
you should encourage your organization to take action. In the late
'70s and early 80's a number of scientific and educational organiza-
tions issued such resolutions. At that time, many arguments were
given against doing this. One was was that taking such a position was
dogmatic, unscientific, and closed-minded. But is it dogmatic,
unscientific, and closed-minded to state that there is no supportive
scientific evidence for something when such a statement is true? Not
if one is prepared to rescind the statement if new evidence presents
itself. Another argument was that the issuing of such statements
would serve to help, not hinder, creationists since they could claim
persecution by "orthodox" science. However, in the late 70s and early
80s such statements actually helped prevent the passage of numerous
creationist school board resolutions and a number of state legis-
lative actions. The final negative argument was that the issuing
of such statements dignified creationists with a reply. This would be
a persuasive argument were it not for the fact that creationism
appeals to the already deeply-held religious sentiments of millions of
Americans. As a result, it has tremendous political clout and is a
force to be reckoned with. On the horizon is a similar problem in the
field of history. There are those who deny that the Holocaust ever
happened. At present it would be injudicious for leading
organizations in the field of history to dignify this claim with a
response. But if this view were ever to gain political significance
by tapping into pre-existing prejudices, I doubt that leading
organizations would hesitate to answer. I know for a fact that an
"equal-time" or "balanced-treatment" public school demand is part of
the future strategy of Holocaust-denying groups. So, if a precedent
is not set now in standing firm against such demands, there may be no
end to the compromising of quality, state-of-the-art education in the
future.

2. Another valuable action by scientists and educators is the
providing of advice and information. Often, when state legislative
bodies or school boards consider creationist resolutions, they are not
aware of all the facts they need. Scientists and educators can make
them aware. They can be on hand to testify at hearings and they can
advise attorneys fighting court battles. In the recent past, the
Committees of Correspondence of the National Center for Science
Education have effectively organized these efforts, and the results
have been gratifying. There is less need for this action now, since
creationist legislation is rarely proposed and fewer school boards are
considering resolutions. But if the U.S. Supreme Court were to give
the creationists a favorable ruling, the situation could heat up
again. And creationism off and on becomes a problem in Canada where
different constitutional standards apply.

3. A course of action with more current significance than the above
two is the improving of science education. With the waning of
creationist legislative and school board actions, the National Center
for Science Education has shifted its emphasis to the beefing up of
science textbooks and the education of science teachers. It is not
enough to simply protect public school science education from
religious and pseudoscientific intrusions. One needs to work toward
improvements in the teaching of science so that pseudoscience does not
so easily take hold in the future. In a sense, the rise of creationism
was made possible in part by inadequate science teaching. Students
were often taught the conclusions of evolutionary science without
being told how those conclusions were arrived at or how science works.
Creationists were right in charging that the teaching was "dogmatic."
Students were memorizing facts instead of understanding the scientific
method. As a result, they became perfect set-ups for a persuasive
pseudoscience. In the interest of remedying this, scientists and
educators should become active in demanding a state-of-the-art science
education in our public schools.

4. In spite of the fact that creationist legislative and school-board
actions are less of a threat than before, school teachers, librarians,
and museum curators continue to be plagued at the local level.
Scientists can assist them in many ways. I gave a talk some time back
at the annual conference of the National Science Teachers Association.
The organizers of that event gave me a one-half-hour workshop slot and
a tiny room. Obviously they thought creationism was dead. But those
who crowded into that hot little meeting space, and stood in the hall
peering through the doorway, knew differently. When I asked for a
show of hands from all those who had been confronted by creationist
parents or students locally, almost every hand went up. With there
now existing over 150 local creationist groups, more than at any time
before in our nation's history, it is not surprising to learn that the
pressure at the local level has increased as the pressure at the
national and state level has declined.

When creationists don't make headway in the legislatures and
courts, they shift their emphasis to the local front. They are
stronger there because they have the numbers, are vocal, and have more
direct access to those teaching evolution. This is why it should be
no surprise to learn that local schools and teachers can come under
tremendous pressure. Although schools are not generally giving in and
allowing "balanced treatment" for creationism, they are knuckling
under to the attacks on the teaching of evolution. Evolution is thus
increasingly being regarded as "controversial" subject matter.
Teachers find it safer not to teach it. School administrators find it
safer not to encourage it. School boards find it safer not to insist
upon it. And textbook publishers therefore find it financially
prudent not to mention it, or if they do treat it, to play it down.
The action needed here is strong support for teachers, administrators,
and others who see the value in adequate coverage of evolution.

Teachers themselves need refresher courses in the current
controversies within science, particularly punctuated equilibria,
cladistics, and sociobiology. They also need instruction in more
effective and comprehensive ways to teach science. One thing that I
have provided in the past is effective answers to the standard
creationist arguments against evolution. This has been done through a
journal I founded called Creation/Evolution, the only journal of its
kind to focus on this topic. Educators find it useful. Other sources
of such information are numerous books that respond to creationism.
Among the leading titles are: The Monkey Business by Niles Eldredge,
In the Beginning by Chris McGowan, Abusing Science by Philip Kitcher,
Science on Trial by Douglas Futuyma, and Scientists Confront
Creationism edited by Laurie Godfrey. In sum, there is plenty of
resource material available for any science teacher or layperson who
needs to know how to answer creationist arguments.

But, besides answers to creationist arguments against evolution,
one also needs responses to creationist arguments about law and public
policy. This came up when the Milwaukee Public Museum, after
announcing its planned dinosaur exhibit, came under attack by
creationists. The then curator, Mack West, phoned me for advice. I
provided a lot of information, but he deserves the credit for the
originality and effectiveness of his response.

The creationists argued that since public tax dollars pay for the
museum, the public's beliefs and desires ought to be represented.
Therefore, if the public wants a creation exhibit to "balance" the
dinosaur exhibit, they ought to have one. But Mack West pointed out
that if that argument were valid, the museum ought to fire all the
scientists and just hire exhibit builders. Then the museum could run
a newspaper poll every year where the public could vote for the
exhibits it wanted built. Options could include astrology, the
Bermuda Triangle, and the search for Atlantis. But, of course, this
would defeat the museum's whole purpose as a research and educational
institution. And the museum would no longer be devoted to
scholarship, but to popular culture. Needless to say, Mack West won
the day and the integrity of the museum was maintained. Teachers,
librarians, and school board members need to be prepared to offer
similar arguments when creationists take action against them. They
should not be influenced by the argument that the public thinks
"balanced treatment" or "openness" is a good thing. The public, if
this is indeed their true opinion in a community, is not always
aware of what is at stake, the constitutional issues involved, or even
what creation-science really is.

To effectively combat creationism and improve science education
at all levels requires an alliance of scientists, science teachers,
clergy, politicians, business people, parents, students, textbook
writers, and concerned taxpayers. Business people are especially
important because it is their companies that will have to hire the
scientific illiterates that a pressured school system graduates.
Obviously, it is not in their interest to stand idly by while this
controversy rages. H. Ross Perot (no political endorsement implied)
is one business person who took an active interest in the improvement
of science education. When he saw what happened to academic test
scores in the state of Texas after a decade of creationist influence
on the state Board of Education, he got involved.

But scientific organizations should especially care. Low emphasis
on quality science education means less people to do the scientific
work of tomorrow. College and university professors have a stake in
this every time they must teach a student the basics he or she should
have learned in high school. There are so many people who should care
about this issue, because creationism, if successful in any of its
political aims, could have a tremendous negative influence on science
education, and hence science and technology, in America's future.
==
THE LOST DAY
The conflict between science and religion has had a
long and colorful history. On many occasions a scientific fact or
theory comes into conflict with someone's pet literal interpretation of
the Bible. These literalists have suffered many defeats. Most have
retreated into either ignoring science, or simply declaring untrue
those parts of science they don't like.
But whenever a scientific
result seems to support the Bible, the religion hucksters proclaim that
glorious news from every pulpit! That doesn't happen as often as they
would like these days, so some have taken to distorting or inventing
science to suit their propaganda purposes. Seldom will the gullible
believers trouble themselves to check out the facts. Thus outright
fabrications can proliferate for years without challenge.
One such case occurred in 1970. Many newspapers ran a story headlined
Computer Finds Joshua's Long Day. This story must have gladdened the
hearts of the long-besieged literalists. It told of a NASA computer
programmed to calculate planetary and lunar positions in the future and
the past. While running the program into the past, the scientists were
amazed when the computer "came to a halt.." and put up a red signal
which meant that there was something wrong
"We have found there
is a day missing in spice in elapsed time," someone said. (The lengthy
article is rich in folksy conversations illustrating the perplexity of
the scientists.)
Finally someone suggested that this missing day
might represent the time when Joshua made the sun stand still. But the
computer indicated that "The elapsed time that was missing back in
Joshua's day was 23 hours and 20 minutes," not a whole day. Someone
produced a Bible and found that it said "about (approximately) a day."
(I am here quoting the newspaper article, not the Bible.)
That removed an inconsistency, hut there was still 40 minutes of time to be
accounted for. Someone then remembered II Kings 20, where Isaiah made
the shadow of the sun return backward ten degrees to impress the dying
Hezekish. "Ten degrees is exactly 40 minutes...Isn' t that amazing? Our
God is rubbing their noses in His TRUTH!"
If this is a bit
confusing, I am sorry. The original article is worse, for it is laden
with irrelevant details that obscure the facts. Stripped to its bare
essentials, the story is this:
The computer showed a missing 24 hours.
Only 23 hours 20 minutes of that was "in Joshua's time".
The remaining 40 minutes apparently was lost when Isaiah moved the son's
shadow backward 10 degrees.
Anyone reading the original article and thinking about it would see that it is
full of unanswered questions. To mention just a few:
What was the precision of that 24 hour discrepancy?
How could the computer pinpoint the discrepancy in "Joshua's time", rather
then some other time?
The 40 minutes was calculated by taking 10/360 of one day, which would be
correct if the sun moved back ten degrees. But the Bible clearly says
its shadow (the shadow of a stick or a sundial) moved ten degrees.
These are not generally equivalent.
But there is an even more
fundamental question. Did the incident ever happen? The story has all
of the earmarks of a total fabrication invented by someone with little
knowledge of science or of computers.
The newspaper story credited a
"Mr. Harold Hill" as its source. Hill was described as a "consultant in
the space program", and "President of the Curtis Engine Company in
Baltimore, Md".
My check with NASA sources revealed that Harold
Hill's company had a contract to maintain two small diesel engines that
powered backup electrical generators for one building at the Goddard
Space Flight Center. So it is possible that Hill might have been there
on at least one occasion, supervising that work. But that hardly
qualifies him to be called a "consultant" . Hill was in no way involved
with any computer work there, or any other scientific project.
Jim Lacey, Public Information Officer at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center,
told me, by phone, that his office was deluged with inquiries about the
newspaper article. "I checked it out 40 ways, from all angles, and it
has no basis in fact," he says. He speculates that some of the computer
people may have encountered Hill, perceived him to be a simpleminded,
gullible religious nut, and told him a wild yarn to see if he would be
foolish enough to believe it.
Lacey also notes that the
newspaper account is full of obvious errors and fabrication. It
reported that the incident "happened to our astronauts and space
scientists at Green Belt, Md." But in fact, no astronauts ever worked
at Greenbelt (it's one word).
At that time, computer time cost
between $500 and $700 an hour. The computer programs were designed to
predict future planetary positions for space missions. They seldom
predicted more than 4 years aheadthe planning time of a space project.
NASA has absolutely no reason to calculate past planetary positions.
Then
there is the matter of accuracy. Any mathematical computation
propagates error, since data are never perfect. A computer program of
that type would produce worthless and meaningless answers if used to
predict anything that far in the past. There is no way it could find a
discrepancy as small as a day way back in ancient times. Anyone who
believed the "Lost Day" story simply didn't understand the practical
limitations of computers and of such data.
Finally, if such a
far-fetched incident really had happened, it would surely have been
published in a scientific journal. It would be of great importance to
historians who need accurate dating of past events. No such publication
has appeared.
In July, 1970 I wrote to Mr. Hill, raising
questions such as these and requesting specific information on who had
done the computer work, where they had published papers about it, etc.
Hill's reply came rather promptly: a form letter, addressed to "All who have
requested additional MISSING DAY details." Mr. Hill had, by that time,
received a "flood of over 1000 letters and phone calls." He says that
the newspaper article was apparently adapted from "one of the many
talks I have made on the subject of Science and the Bible and the
perfect harmony which exists between them."
But Hill admits,
"Since this incident first came to my attention about two years ago, I
have misplaced the source of information and so am unable to give you
names and places but will forward them as soon as I locate them. In the
meantime I can only tell you that had I not considered the source to be
completely reliable, I would not have made use of this information in
the first place. I am interested in facts and not fiction." Sure. It
is now 1979. Nearly nine years have elapsed, and Mr. Hill has not sent
me the "names and places". Perhaps the source of his second-hand story
was not so reliable as he thought.
The remainder of Mr. Hill's
form letter was devoted to the specious blather one often hears from
"born again" Christians. In fact, he says, "Since meeting Jesus Christ
personally about sixteen years ago, I need no scientific proof of God's
Reality." But that doesn't stop Hill from including alleged scientific
evidence for religion in his public speeches.
Mr. Hill is
apparently not at all concerned that he might be perpetuating a fairy
tale. He even encourages further dissemination of this fable by
referring those who wish to reprint the article to contact the EVENING
WORLD newspaper.
The many newspaper columnists who uncritically
reprinted this story were obviously not concerned with checking its
validity. One still sees the story reprinted in religious tracts and
Sunday-school publications. The news media frequently print nonsense of
this sort as if it were fact. When someone challenges its accuracy, a
newspaper may print a correction, but bury it on a back page.
Many
gullible people were convinced this story was true. Even now they may
suspect that NASA's denials represent a "coverup". Things haven't
changed much since Voltaire observed: "The truths of religion are never
so well understood as by those who have lost the power of reasoning."
ENDNOTE
The
story originally appeared in "Mary Kay's Kollum" (by Mary Kathryn
Bryan) in the Spencer, Indiana EVENING WORLD, October 10, 1969. Other
papers picked it up. Our own LOCK HAVEN EXPRESS had brief mention of it
in John Rasmussen's "This-n-That" column. He reported that "The Lost
Hour" (sic) item was read at a prayer breakfast of the Fraternal Order
of Eagles State Auxiliary. "The reading was so well received by the FOE
women, copies of "The Lost Hour were made at Clearfield for
distribution to auxiliary members throughout Pennsylvania. " This is how
nonsense gets spread far and wide
==
Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, an
Oakland, Calif.-based organization dedicated to protecting the integrity of
science education in the public schools, says that once McLeroy and his allies
failed to pass the "strengths and weakness" language, "they had a fallback
position, which was to continue amending the standards to achieve through
the back door what they couldn't achieve upfront."

And they succeeded. Casey Luskin, a Discovery Institute lawyer, and its
guy on
the Austin scene, was psyched by the outcome. "These are the strongest standards
in the country now," he says. "The language adapted requires students to
have
critical thinking about all of science, including evolution, and it urges
them to look at all sides of the issue."

One amendment calls for students to "analyze and evaluate scientific
explanations concerning any data on sudden appearance and stasis and the
sequential groups in the fossil record." The key words are "sudden
appearance"
and "stasis." McLeroy argues that "the sudden appearance" of forms in the
Cambrian period, when there was a rapid multiplication and diversification
of
species, and the persistence of forms over long periods of time (stasis)
are
evidence against evolution. And thus for creationism.

In 2012, when the board next selects textbooks, anti-evolution members will be
able to argue against books that don't sufficiently "evaluate scientific
explanations" concerning stasis or so-called sudden appearance. Another
amendment requires that teachers and textbooks include language to
"analyze and
evaluate scientific explanation concerning the complexity of the cell." Arguing
for the "irreducible complexity" of cells is another key creationist theme.

Each of the amendments singles out an old creationist argument, strips it
of its overtly ideological language, and requires teachers and textbook
publishers to
adopt it. In other words, says Joshua Rosenau of NCSE, if the books don't
at least pay lip service to criticizing natural selection, they risk not
being adopted.
==
You claim that since you can't see how
evolution can do what it's claimed to do, there must be a supernatural
"intelligence" performing miracles that leave no evidence.
==
Using the method made famous by Barry Setterfield, astrophysicist
Robert Scherrer has show that the "constant" pi varies in time. In
a preprint appearing on April 1, 2009, Scherrer shows that pi has
increased monotonically in time, asymptotically converging to its
present value.
The Setterfield method, first applied to the speed of light, consists
of a selecting judicious collection of historical measurements and
fitting them to an arbitrarily chosen curve. Presumably to avoid
the bias of atheistic referees, Scherrer does not refer to this
pioneering work. Scherrer also fails to point out that an eyeball
extrapolation of his curve would bring pi down to a value of 3 in
biblical times, thus confirming the accuracy of I Kings 7:23-26.

Scherrer's preprint may be found at http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.5321.
==
First attend a college
level course in biology, bacteriology, ecology, embryology, ethology,
histology, microbiology, morphology, paleoanthropology, paleobiology,
paleontology, paleozoology, physiology, phytology, zoology,
biochemistry, genetics and anthropology and then you are ready to judge
evolution.
==
For the past decade, University of Michigan psychologist Margaret Evans has
been investigating why creationist thinking comes more easily to the human
mind than does evolutionary thinking. Persistence [of creationist beliefs] is
not simply the result of fundamentalist politics and socialization, writes
Evans. Rather, these forces themselves depend on certain propensities of the
human mind. According to Evans, the preponderance of creationist beliefsas
well as their recalcitrance in the face of logical scienceis due in large part
to the way our cognitive systems have (ironically enough) evolved.
As a scientist, Evans isn't so much interested in the metaphysical question of
ultimate origins, but rather in the cognitive factors that influence and
constrain our ability to think and reason about this existential problem. In
her very important research, she's been mapping out how childrens reasoning
about origins are influenced by particular developmental experiences, such as
being raised by a professor of evolutionary biology versus a pastor at the
local church. Or, more commonly, just by regular parents.
Evans has discovered that regardless of their parents beliefs or whether they
attend religious or secular school, when asked where the first member of a
particular animal species came from (say, a fox or a turtle), 5- to 7-year-old
children give either spontaneous generationist (e.g., it got born there) or
creationist (e.g., God made it) responses. By 8-10 years of age, however,
children from both secular and religious backgrounds give exclusively
creationist answers. Typically these answers are manifest as God made it, but
often Nature is personified, seen as a deliberate agent that intentionally
made the animal. Its only among the oldest children shes studied, the
10-12-year-olds, that Evans uncovers an effect of developmental experience,
with children of evolutionary-minded parents giving evolutionary responses and
those of evangelical parents giving creationist answers to the question.
In one of her writings, subtitled Why Creationism is Here to Stay, Evans
states that the theory of evolution is not something that arises intuitively,
but rather requires a specific knowledge structure. In other words, thinking
like an evolutionist is hard work because, ironically, it works against the
grain of evolved human psychology. Evolutionists will probably never outnumber
creationists, Evans believes, since the latter has a paradoxical ally in the
way natural selection has lent itself to our species ability to reason about
its own origins.
According to Evans and other psychologists, including Deborah Kelemen from
Boston University, theres a very specific cognitive glitch that invades our
rationalist thought whenever were pondering the subject of lifes origins,
something those who do research in this area refer to as teleo-functional
thinking (reasoning about the functional purpose of an entity or object in
question). When scratching our heads over an artifactwith the end product
before us, asking ourselves how it came to bethese scientists find that we
tend to start off by trying to deduce what its meant for. If youve ever
puzzled over an ambiguous gadget at the Sharper Image or some archaic device
at the antique store or museum, asking yourself, I wonder what thats supposed
to be for? this is an example of your teleo-functional reasoning in action.
Many times the various physical or architectural features of the object, what
are called its affordances, give us clues as to its inherent purpose, or in
other words what the designer of the object had in mind when creating it. An
object with a handle, for instance, is meant for holding, while one with a
hook is meant for hooking, and so on, and we interact with the object
accordingly.
==
One thing you may also have noticed is that when we cant figure out the
purpose of something to our satisfaction, it can be very, very frustrating. As
a teenager, I once made the strangest archeological find in the trunk of a
hundred-year-old shagbark hickory tree that grew in the backyard of my familys
house in Ohio. Since it was nearly dead anyway and, furthermore, in a state of
suspended decline in the direction of our roof, my father decided to have the
tree felled. Its remains were then butchered into firewood and stacked neatly
on our lawn. It was in this stack of wood, while sorting for kindling one
winter, that I discovered something curious among the trees ruins, a tool of
some sorttwo conjoining iron segments, one resembling an anvil with an opening
at its rounded end for the pivot joint of the other to sit in. It had come to
be wedged into the tree when the land was still owned by a hardworking farmer
rather than a housing developer, and a thick hide of bark and lignum had
consumed it in the time since.

I never did find out what that tool was supposed to be for, much less how it
wound up in the belly of an old hickory tree. But why is it so irritating for
me, to this day, to be deprived of this answer? It could be that, as
University of California at Berkeley psychologist Alison Gopnik suggests, this
object and its elusive purpose serves as something of a sexual tease for me,
only its not walking in front of me semi-naked and giving me that come hither
look insomuch as its wearing the cognitive chastity belt of a brainteaser.
Gopnik argues that human beings have evolved an innate explanatory drive that
motivates us to seek explanations similar to the way were motivated to achieve
sexual climax. That is to say, for the sheer thrill and phenomenological bliss
of it. Just as those few seconds in bed or on top of the washing machine feel
naturally grand and put a smile on your face, so too does lighting upon that
fleeting eureka moment in solving a mind-tickling problem leave you glowing.
(OK, so maybe doing crosswords or Sudoku isnt going to have you exactly biting
your bottom lip and moaning in ecstasy, but you get the gist of Gopniks
analogy.)
Physiologically speaking, says Gopnik, your brain is rigged up to chase these
short-lived moments of pleasure: orgasm in the one instance because sex is
natures feel-good ruse to get your genes out there, and explanation in the
other because knowing why things work the way they do enables you to learn and
therefore to make more adaptive responses in the future. The thing is, Gopnik
points out, your explanation doesnt actually need to be correct to get that
burst of pleasure; youve just got to believe youve solved the problem. In any
event, unless I ever spend a Sunday afternoon googling images from a search of
agrarian tool history, then Im not going to get much satisfaction whenever I
think about my 19th-century hickory-encrusted artifact.
One important point made by researchers working in this area is that
teleo-functional reasoning invokes our social cognition because it has us
guessing what the person whod originally conceptualized the object intended it
to be used for. Oh I see, well say, rotating some mysterious contraption in our
hands and finally recognizing some hidden function for one if its doohickeys or
thingamajigs, how clever. Of course for artifacts, or for that matter anything
intentionally manmade, this type of thinking makes sense. People are indeed
very clever at designing new objects that have a functional purpose. In fact
one could even say were ingenious at devising solutions to problems this way.
Just over the past few decades, more than 600 original patents have been
awarded for bidets and bidet-related accessories and 400 for products meant to
improve your croissant-baking skills. But when applied to human origins,
Darwins mindless machine of natural selection obviates the need for an
intelligent designer. Somebody needs to explain this to Rick WarrenStat!
As far as I know, the type of psychological research and theories described
above havent been given much consideration in the endless intelligent design
debates eating up the clock at many lively school board meetings. But since it
shows how our minds give the Book of Genesis a generous (and rather unfair)
handicap in science education dialogue, it may be wise to table such findings
for discussion.
===
Bill Would Allow Texas School to Grant Master's Degree in Science for
Creationism
A Texas legislator is waging a war of biblical proportions against the science
and education communities in the Lone Star State as he fights for a bill that
would allow a private school that teaches creationism to grant a Master of
Science degree in the subject.
State Rep. Leo Berman (R-Tyler) proposed House Bill 2800 when he learned that
The Institute for Creation Research (ICR), a private institution that
specializes in the education and research of biblical creationism, was not
able to receive a certificate of authority from Texas' Higher Education
Coordinating Board to grant Master of Science degrees.
Berman's bill would allow private, non-profit educational institutions to be
exempt from the boards authority.
If you dont take any federal funds, if you dont take any state funds, you can
do a lot more than some business that does take state funding or federal
funding, Berman says. Why should you be regulated if you dont take any state
or federal funding?
HB 2800 does not specifically name ICR; it would allow any institution that
meets its criteria to be exempt from the board's authority. But Berman says
ICR was the inspiration for the bill because he feels creationism is as
scientific as evolution and should be granted equal weight in the educational
community.

I dont believe I came from a salamander that crawled out of a swamp millions
of years ago, Berman told FOXNews.com. "I do believe in creationism. I do
believe there are gaps in evolution.
"But when you ask someone who believes in evolution, if you ask one of the
elitists who believes in evolution about the gaps, theyll tell you that the
debate is over, that there is no debate, evolution is the thing, its the only
way to go.
But critics say that Bermans bill will be disastrous if it passes.
This would open the door to other fly-by-night organizations that come in and
want to award degrees in our state, because the bill is highly generalized,
said Steven Schafersman, president of Texas Citizens for Science.
Right now, we dont have this problem in Texas. Texas is not a center for
degree mills, because our laws allow only the Texas Higher Education
Coordinating Board to approve the granting of graduate degrees.
It would certainly open the door to all kinds of chicanery, says Eugenie
Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education. I
mean, all you have to do, it looks to me from the bill, is start a non-profit
organization, dont take any federal or state money, and then offer degrees in
any fool subject you want.
Schafersman fears that amending state law to accommodate institutions such as
ICR would devalue Texas graduate degrees.
The degrees would substandard, worthless, but they would be certified by
Texas, he said.
All colleges and universities granting degrees in Texas currently must be
issued a certificate of authority by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating
Board (THECB). The certificate allows that institution to grant a higher
education degree that is recognized by the state  a degree a graduate would
need to apply for a teaching position in a Texas public school.
ICR was denied a certificate of authority in 2007.
HB 2800 would pave the way for institutions like ICR to grant science degrees
equal to those of other Texas universities. And that possibility has critics
fuming.
Their science education degrees are greatly inferior to those at, say, the
University of Texas or Baylor University or even a good community college,
frankly, says Scott. Teaching that the Earth is only 10,000 years old is a
little irregular in modern science.
The ICR issued a statement affirming that it is a legitimate educational
institute that employs credentialed Ph.D. scientists from around the country.
It insisted that the THECB has acted discriminatorily against the ICRs
application both in process and in the substance of fact, and it said THECB
allowed influence of evolution-biased lobbying efforts to influence process
and outcome.
The coordinating board denies any wrongdoing and says Bermans bill is a
slippery slope for higher education in Texas.
HB 2800 appears to open the doors of Texas to predatory institutions, says De
Juana Lozada, assistant director of communications for THECB. Were the bill to
become law, it could have the effect of leaving students defenseless against
exploitation by diploma mills and other substandard institutions.
"The Coordinating Board just last year eased restrictions on legitimate
institutions of higher education desiring to operate in Texas. For legitimate
institutions, the legislation is completely unnecessary.
Berman sees the board's decision to deny ICR certification as a double
standard.
If a schools teaching all evolution, would that be a balanced education? he
asked. So its the same thing on both ends of the stick.
But advocates of more conventional science education say the THECB was right
to deny ICR certification and that Bermans motives in introducing the bill
were simply to reward an institution loyal to him.
You just cant play fast and loose with the rules that everyone has to follow
just to favor a constituent, says Scott. I think the people of Texas should be
very concerned about this issue.
While HB 2800 makes its way through the legislature, ICR and the THECB will
continue their mediation before a Texas state judge. Insiders say that if the
mediation does not go their way, ICR will sue the board.
==
Here's some of the code words Gefter says give away a book's closeted ID
agenda.
1.     Scientific Materialism
2.     The invocation of Cartesian dualism
3.     Misguided interpretations of quantum physics (also a "New Age" giveaway)
4.     The terms "Darwinism" or "Darwinist" (scientists refer to "evolution"
and "biologists")
5.     Referring to natural selection as "blind", "random" or an "undirected
process"

"It is crucial to the public's intellectual health
to know when science really is science. Those with a religious agenda will
continue to disguise their true views in their effort to win supporters,
so please read between the lines."
==
One of the arguments is that "nature obeys rational and ordered laws",
"Who wrote the laws of nature?" This very nicely conflates descriptions with
prescriptions, natural laws with normative, written commandments.
The second argument, that we're intelligent and purpose-driven persons,
so therefore there must be another intelligent and purpose-driven person to
"explain" our own intelligence and purposes, again, enough has been said about
this particular con.
The third argument is a nice touch: surely something couldn't have come from
nothing (so says the law of sufficient reason, and nature has to be rational,
after all); so the brute fact that nature exists means that an "infinite
intelligence" must also exist. It's appropriate that your quotation refers
only to the divine attribute of infinite intelligence, leaving out reference
to God's eternity. That's a nice way to conceal the fallacy of this argument
(you know, the special pleading, and all). You don't want to point out that
God's allowed to be eternal, implying that God doesn't come from nothing, but
that nature isn't allowed to be eternal.
==
Education goes only so far in extinguishing mistaken beliefs about the
physical world.  It suggests that we're quite explicitly failing in science
education.
==
"Darwinism" is just a word creationists use, to make it look like belief
that evolution happens, based on observable, scientific evidence, is a
form of religious belief. Scientists don't use it.
==
STATE OF OKLAHOMA

1st Session of the 52nd Legislature (2009)

HOUSE
RESOLUTION 1015     By:     Thomsen

AS INTRODUCED

A Resolution opposing the invitation to Richard Dawkins to speak on campus;
encouraging the University of Oklahoma to engage in a certain discussion of
certain scientific theories; and directing distribution.

WHEREAS, the University of Oklahoma is a publicly funded institution which
should be open to all ideas and should train students in all disciplines of
study and research and to use independent thinking and free inquiry; and
WHEREAS, the University of Oklahoma has planned a year-long celebration of the
200th birthday of Charles Darwin and the 150th anniversary of Darwins theory of
evolution, called the "Darwin 2009 Project", which includes a series of
lectures, public speakers, and a course on the history of evolution; and
WHEREAS, the University of Oklahoma, as a part of the Darwin 2009 Project, has
invited as a public speaker on campus, Richard Dawkins of Oxford University,
whose published opinions, as represented in his 2006 book "The God Delusion",
and public statements on the theory of evolution demonstrate an intolerance
for cultural diversity and diversity of thinking and are views that are not
shared and are not representative of the thinking of a majority of the
citizens of Oklahoma; and
WHEREAS, the invitation for Richard Dawkins to speak on the campus of the
University of Oklahoma on Friday, March 6, 2009, will only serve to present a
biased philosophy on the theory of evolution to the exclusion of all other
divergent considerations rather than teaching a scientific concept.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE 1ST
SESSION OF THE 52ND OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:
THAT the Oklahoma House of Representative strongly opposes the invitation to
speak on the campus of the University of Oklahoma to Richard Dawkins of Oxford
University, whose published statements on the theory of evolution and opinion
about those who do not believe in the theory are contrary and offensive to the
views and opinions of most citizens of Oklahoma.
THAT the Oklahoma House of Representatives encourages the University of
Oklahoma to engage in an open, dignified, and fair discussion of the Darwinian
theory of evolution and all other scientific theories which is the approach
that a public institution should be engaged in and which represents the desire
and interest of the citizens of Oklahoma.
THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the President of the
University of Oklahoma, the Dean of the College of Arts and Science at the
University of Oklahoma, and the Chair of the Department of Zoology at the
University of Oklahoma.

52-1-7275     KB     03/03/09

==
A Matter of Days: Resolving a Creation Controversy by Hugh Ross. 2004, ISBN:
1-57683-375-5
==
http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/
==
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/lorence_collins/polonium.html

The short answer is that minerals such as fluoite and micas have
large voids in their crystal lattices, which Radon 222 can easily
pass. In the neighborhood of uranium deposts there is a lot
of 222Rn, which when ionized (as it will be when Radon 226
decays to make 222Rn) has the charge of a hydroxyl radical.
Both micas and flourite have hydroxyl accepting sites. A number
of ionized decay products of238U can fit into those hydroxyl
accepting sites. To see the 238U decay series see:
http://www.health.state.ny.us/environmental/radiological/radon/chain.htm

The point being that these halos formed, not instantaneously,
but over centuries, or millenia. With successive atoms of
the various hydroxyl charged isotopes plugging into the hydroxyl
accepting sites, and then subsequently decaying.
==
http://www.creavolution.org/shortfalls.htm  anti evolution
==
Not only does Bob Jones University teach creationism, it teaches YEC.
==
Profs protest alternative evolution teaching
Professors around Iowa are rallying against a piece of state legislation that
supports alternative teaching of evolution, such as creationism, as a
scientific view.
More than 220 people, including 56 University of Iowa professors, have signed
an Iowa faculty petition against House File 183 - The Evolution Academic
Freedom Act, which was introduced this session by State Rep. Rod Roberts,
R-Carroll.
The bill maintains that alternate theories on evolution fall under academic
freedom, which should be protected for teachers and students that want to
present such theories as scientific views in the classroom.
Roberts did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment.
Opponents say the bill would allow teachers at all education levels to
introduce religious views as science, and it would forbid teachers from
discounting non-science based answers from students.
The premise of the petition is that this is ridiculous. Lets stop it here,
said John Logsdon, a UI associate professor of evolutionary molecular genetics
who signed the petition.
It is teaching something that is not science cloaked in an academic freedom
issue, he said. Its an underhanded ploy which is driven by this external force
with a very clear agenda.
Opponents say the bill is sponsored and supported by the Discovery Institute,
a Seattle-based organization, which has been behind similar legislation in
several other states.
Such laws have failed in places like Alabama, Florida and Oklahoma, said James
Demastes, an associate biology professor at University of Northern Iowa who has
spearheaded the petition drive. But it passed and was signed into law in
Louisiana, he said.
This type of legislation feeds off a false premise that there is a controversy
within the field of science about the validity of evolutionary theory, Demastes
said, so it is just a mechanism to introduce religious or non-scientific
doctrines into the science curriculum.
Academic freedom bills not only encourage teachers and students to attack
evolution, but strip state education departments and local school districts of
the power to regulate this part of the science curriculum, Demastes wrote in an
e-mail seeking signatures for the petition.
UI officials are not taking an institutional position on the bill, UI
spokesman Steve Parrott said.
Keith Saunders, UIs liaison to the Iowa Legislature, said the bill is in the
Iowa Houses education sub-committee. He said he does not expect the bill to
pass.
From what Ive heard I dont anticipate it making it past the first funnel. We
have concerns about the bill, but we are not expecting it to move, he said.
==
In June 2007, the Council of Europe's Committee on Culture, Science and
Education released a report entitled "The Dangers of Creationism in Education."
According to Anne Brasseur, a member of the council who collaborated on the
report, its goal was to firmly anchor the theory of evolution in school
curricula.

The report was prompted by resistance to teaching Darwin's theory in some
European countries. "For example," Brasseur explains, "the former deputy
education minister of Poland called the theory of evolution a lie."
She went on to list a number of other negative examples:

In Russia, many parents are strongly opposed to the teaching of evolution in
grade schools.

In Italy in 2004, there was a proposed decree against the theory of evolution.

In Switzerland, the ProGenesis group has a tentative project called "Genesis-
Land" that envisions a leisure park on the model of the Creation Museum in the
US state of Kentucky.

In the United Kingdom, creationists hold lectures at schools and organize
international symposia.

In Turkey, the Islamic creationist Harun Yahya has published his "Atlas of
Creation" and sent hundreds of free copies to schools all over the world.

In Germany, the Ministry of Education for the state of Hesse saw no
infringement of the curriculum when teachers at a number of schools were found
to be teaching
the Biblical theory of creation in biology class.

The publishing house "Studiengemeinschaft Wort und Wissen" is now publishing
the
sixth edition of a grade school textbook that includes the theory of
intelligent design.
==
Fundie science
God speaks to everyone even those who dont beleive in him.
He speaks to you thru your five senses.
If you break off a dead branch and the chunk is square or round,
it spins around in the river. The longer length you break it then
stability is gained and it doesnt spin. Likewise the height and width,
if cubical will roll, but if wide than height, it gains stability.
Yet you do not want to long a vessel because being hollow it
can bend and snap. Thus the voices of God come in the nature
when observing anything that floats.
If you read all the stories about Noah, without arguing if they
are pagan or not as if all pagan info is liars and false,
you should before interpreting then realize these stories are
Noah's children after the Flood, so it means they heard it
from those 8 people and twisted it all up from that point.
These are not other cultures who heard it from an unrelated culture
about THEIR local flood. It is family descendents who never saw that Flood
not because they werent there locally, but because they were not alive.
So the thing to now see in these stories is the gods are always things
that together ARE THE VOICE OF GOD. It says the wind told him,
and the sky told him, and the fish told him, and a bird told him.
Yes Noah was astronomer and weatherman meteorologist, nnot by
schooling because schools were formed by his grandson Nimrod.
So when you find design in the ark, that voice of God is the same
that talks to all you atheist egineers. But that voice can kill you
as well as save you. The problem is you have jerks who claim the
ark was built as they see it and this causes people of better
knowledge to laugh and scoff because they know that GODS DESIGN
proves their little sketches and textbooks as garbage. So the man of God
is the one who can see that these fraud attempts to claim ark shape
is not of God but of the fake witness of God, or the fraud priest of God,
or the sham artist. Do not blame God for a false design that some
religion or preacher claims. Be assured that ark was built in a way
you know it scientifically would survive because God still uses those
same physical laws of physics that he has created.
In this way an engineer can come to know God and speak to him
better than the religions who will all die along with the atheists.
Only men of both God and science will live because science is God,
and God is science, and he created it, it functions as he wishes it to,
and is not an indictaion of who he wants alive or dead.

ELIJAH
world war 3
Slaughter of the Lamb she goes to heaven
prePassover April 9 world Peace
asteroid impact fire of April 9
7 days to reach 6000 feet elevation
April 15 dateline UN and USA taxes unpaid to Jehovah
April 16 seven day mantle meltdown reaches continental collaps
Jehovah wipes the Earth clean with salt water over 6000 feet deep.
(When a water canopy cleared after 40 days on 2369 BC Jan 6 after
having drifted 139 miles it took 110 days for the ark to reach another
381 miles to Ararat where the water was 22 feet over 17,000 foot Ararat.
This ocean 2km deep covered what is still an 11,000 foot mountain
now on a plareau 6000 feet high. Thus what was sea floor on that day
around the base of Ararat pushed up 17,000 feet (11,000 to the ocean
surface and 6000 feet above the surface). The water did not drain, rather
the continents all pushed back up as the sea floors dropped back down.
The mantle flow under all crust was caused by the Yucatan impact (2370 BC
Nov 20) seven days before the ark was loaded and door sealed. Thus it was
only coincidence that water canopy collapse reached Iraq in the same 7
days that the meltdown under oceans all reached midcontinent of every
continent. The collapse was 5 months of mantle that melted 11,000 feet
(2km) and took 7 months to raise back up. This
is why the volcanic activity for 450 years to Sodom. The stationary comet
of 1514 BC (1513 BC exodus) reactivated cvolcanic effect on Thera Atlantis
and Sinai as well as plagues amplified by incompetent drifted calendars
(only 10 were predicted by Moses concerning Egypt
with no regard for the rest of the planets palgues).
Know these things and you know why the next 2 months will be hell.
==
Iowa educators respond to evolution bill
Some representatives from Iowas regent universities are calling for the state
Legislature to kill HF 183, The Evolution Academic Freedom Act, introduced
Feb. 3 by Rep. Rod Roberts, R-Carroll.
A statement released Tuesday includes a petition with more than 200 signatures
by faculty opposing HF 183 from Iowa State University, the University of Iowa
and the University of Northern Iowa, as well as from 17 other Iowa
universities, colleges and community colleges, seven primary and secondary
schools, and three research organizations.
The statement was written by Hector Avalos,ISU professor of religious studies;
James W. Demastes,UI associate professor of biology; and Tara C. Smith, UI
assistant professor of epidemiology.
According to the statement, HF 183 is one of many academic freedom bills that
have been introduced in the last year that are sponsored and supported by the
Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based anti-evolution organization. Similar
bills have been introduced in several states, including Alabama, Florida and
Oklahoma. One such bill passed and was signed into law in Louisiana.
Robert Crowther Jr., Discovery Institutes communications director, said the
Discovery Institute has not been directly involved in writing HF 183 but
thinks it is likely Roberts crafted the bills language along the lines of the
institutes model legislation.
Thats what we hoped would happen, Crowther said. We want anyone interested in
furthering academic freedom to use our resources.
Crowther said the Discovery Institute is often misrepresented as seeking to
mandate teaching creationism or intelligent design.
We simply want educators to be free to teach the strengths and weaknesses of
the scientific theories involved in evolution, he said.
HF 183 states that college and high school teachers often suffer
discrimination or punishment for questioning evolution.
But Demastes, Smith and Avalos say state education departments have not found
any cases of such discrimination, nor have the sponsors of these bills
provided examples. A 2005 survey conducted by the National Science Teachers
Association found that many teachers reported significant community pressure
to downplay or attack evolution.
Demastes, Smith and Avalos say support for HF 183 comes from mostly
conservative religious groups, such as the Iowa Christian Alliance, and not
from legitimate scientific or educational organizations, such as the Iowa
State Education Association and the Iowa Department of Education, which oppose
HF 183.
Norman Pawlewski, representing the Christian Alliance and one of two state
lobbyists registered in favor of HF 183, said, Why shouldnt teachers and
students be able to decide among all the science-related information? God
created science, after all.
Clark Wolf, ISU director of bioethics, said its important to note that people
on both sides of the issue want academic freedom. The key is determining what
is legitimate science, he said. Educators have a responsibility protect the
rights of all students, Wolf said, and its nearly impossible to teach
intelligent design creationism outside a religious framework.
The Pennsylvania courts set a precedent when they concluded that intelligent
design creationism is not science in the 2005 case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area
School District, Wolf said.
The court said teachers who present intelligent design creationism as if it
were science are not simply doing their students a disservice, Wolf said. They
are violating their rights.
Michael Clough, ISU associate professor of science education in the department
of curriculum and instruction, said there are no rival theories that stand up
to the evidence for evolution. He calls HF 183 unfortunate and misguided,
especially at a time when science education is increasingly important for
solving issues of energy, climate and participating in the global
information-age economy.
Clough said he believes evolution theory does not promote atheism and that
there is no conflict between science and religion.
Its sciences job to look for natural explanations, Cough said, and that
science cant make claims about a supernatural being.
==
The truth is that in order to accept creationism as true, one must have faith.
While on the other side, all of the real evidence points to evolution as true.
==
Creation
www.answersingenesis.org/arj
www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/design.asp

Fossils
www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp

Age/Dating methods
www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1/radiocarbon-ages-for-ammonites-wood
www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp
www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/young-age-evidence
www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible
www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove

www.creationontheweb.com
www.icr.org
==
The purpose of education is to prepare students for living in the real
world, a world of politics, religion, culture wars, etc. Many of these
students won't pursue careers in science or medicine. Years after they
graduate, they may forget the details of the genetic code or transfer
RNA or whatnot that they learned in science class. I've forgotten a lot
of stuff I learned in science class.
But they should take away from science class some lessons about what
happens when science meets the real world.
I don't understand why those who believe ID should be covered in
biology class don't also make claims for the inclusion of other topics
from fringe science that zillions of people have faith in.
It just doesn't seem FAIR.
Let' see. What would an ideal classroom session for a new improved
inclusive biology look like?

10 minutes for Lamarkian biology
10 minutes for Orgone energy
10 minutes for astrology
10 minutes for distant healing
10 minutes for ID
10 minutes for prayer power

OOPPPS!!!!! There goes the whole hour. And I'm not 1/10 finished yet.
Is what to be included to be determined solely by how loudly its
advocates shout for its inclusion?
The rule of decibels, rather than science?
==
Kim Struiksma doesn't think evolution should be taught in schools. So the
25-year-old Blaine resident, along with a group of friends from her church,
have fashioned Initiative 1040, which "concerns a supreme ruler of the
universe."
The initiative would prohibit "state use of public money or lands for anything
that denies or attempts to refute the existence of a supreme ruler of the
universe, including textbooks, instruction or research," according to
paperwork filed on the Washington Secretary of State's Web site.
Struiksma said during a telephone interview Wednesday, Feb. 18, that the
initiative version online is being revamped and a second one would be offered
to improve some the language.
==
A survey last year suggested that 16% of American science teachers are
creationist,
==
What I have a problem figuring out is how you can insist that
passages referring to God walking on the (presumably solid) sky, or
the sky having openings to let the rain through, are obviously
figurative to any honest and competent reader, yet passages referring
to God making animals out of dirt are obviously literal to that same
honest and competent ruler? Your standards of interpretation here
seem to be entirely arbitrary, determined neither by the Bible itself
nor by the scientific means, but by the traditions of whichever men
you happen to have accidentally adopted as authorities.
Strictly speaking, in the first edition of _Origin of Species_, Darwin
spoke of the original common ancestors having life breathed into them
by a Creator. But that's a nitpicking technicality. More generally,
no chemist has ever said that any Deity has any role in chemical
reactions. No physicist has ever posited a function for God in any
explained a drought or rainy summer by invoking the wrath or pleasure
of the Almighty. Science doesn't deal in the actions of God (if it
did if God turned out to be Something that could be explained,
predicted, and manipulated in accord with some scientific theory
would Christians be pleased?). Demanding that science allow God a
role in the subject matter of theories is nothing but assuming that
God is a godofthegaps, and a desperate whine against allowing
science to fill in those gaps. In that respect, it is a starkly anti
science position, but in the long run, I think, it is equally an anti
Christian position.
Yet again, no scientific theory invokes God as an explanation, or
seeks to leave him some role in the subject of the science. By its
nature, the supernatural' does not operate according to principles
that human beings can discover, formulate, test and use; one cannot
have a theory about or incorporating supernatural causes. Any
supernatural cause that science could actually deal with would be
just another, misnamed, sort of natural cause. Whether God operates
behind and/or through the operations of natural law is not something
science can address. Atheists and agnostics deny that there is any
reason to suppose that any of our speculations on such supernatural
causes is anywhere close to the truth, but strictly speaking this is
not something that can be proved.
==
http://www.toarchive.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html
===
Darwin was wrong. Tepeu and Gucamatz came together to create the world.
Whatever was thought of by Tepeu and Gucamatz came into being. Heart-of-Sky
fashioned humans out of maize-corn dough after they made the animals, and the
wooden people were turned into monkeys.
==
Catholics might consider the words of
Pope Benedict XVI, who recently called the debate over evolution ³an
absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor
of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which
enriches our understanding of life and being as such.²
==
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html     Dover case
==
The Watchmaker "Argument" is not a fallacy but an
argument from analogy. It is precisely because we know that a statue
has a specified pattern requiring the design activity of an
intelligent agent that the analogy can be employed and have some
probative force.
For example, the human heart has a recognizable specified pattern (a
multi valve pump). The existence of the recognizable specified
pattern is the "basis of resemblence" between the known exemplar (the
statue) and the unknown (the human heart). In an analogy it is
reasoned that whenever one finds this basis of resemblence
(recognizable specified pattern) in an object under investigation it
can be inferred that like the exemplar (the statue) the unknown must
also have required the design activity of an intelligent agent.
Arguments from analogy are weak generalizations.
===
Fundamentalists' objections to evolution and science aren't based upon
science itself - they don't reject evolution because it's not good science.
Their objections are, instead, a product of their belief that evolution
undermines faith and morality. It's pretty much the same objection they have
had to every facet of modern science and culture.
Evolution is perhaps the only area of science which has been transformed
into a legal issue on which courts around the country have had to render
decisions. No one initiates lawsuits over the teaching of gravity, physics,
chemistry, or any other part of the science curriculum. It's also highly
unlikely to find heated legislative debates over the status of such topics
in public schools.
==
State Sen. Stephen Wise, a Jacksonville Republican, said he plans to
introduce a bill to require teachers who teach evolution to also discuss the
idea of intelligent design.  Intelligent design is the concept that life is so
complex that it couldn't occur naturally but must have had an intelligent
Wise, the chief sponsor of the bill, expects the Senate to take it up when it
meets in March. He said its intent is simple: "If you're going to teach
evolution, then you have to teach the other side so you can have critical
thinking.force working to make it happen.
===
Morris offers an interesting paragraph:

"While state legislatures haggle over the words science, theory, and
weaknesses, American schoolchildren continue to rank poorly in science
education among the nations of the world. Pouring more money into the
status quo of evolution-based science education isn't the answer.
Teaching the truth is."

The interesting thing about that quote is, of course, that the nations
that score above the US in science are more committed to "evolution-
based science" than the US itself is.
==
We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture.
Rev. Ray Mummert, Dover, PA
===
Texas
I was at the three day School Board meeting in Austin, Texas, even
though I am from another state. I want to add something to the report
of the actions of the Texas School Board Associations actions
regarding the teaching of science.
The article quoted above is correct in reporting that the words
"strengths and weaknesses" were voted out. They were replaced with
"analyze and evaluate." This was the recommendation of a Board
appointed panel of science teachers and experts that was assigned the
duty of revising the teaching standards. The Board wanted to leave
the old language of "strengths and weaknesses" in the curriculum
standards. BTW, the board has 15 members, seven creationists and
seven evolutionists, and one swing vote. The motion to retain the
"strengths and weaknesses" was not technically defeated. The vote was
7 to 7 with one member absent. The Board counts a tie as defeating a motion.
However, what the news clip above does not report is that late on the
second day, the Chairman of the Board introduced a new rule hidden
in the Earth and Space Sciences (ESS) rules. His wording of the proposed
new rule is much more damaging to the teaching of evolution. He
overwhelmed the Board members with typical creationist mined quotes,
and misinformation. He even made it sound like Ernst Myar questioned
evolution! The new rule is stated in such a way that it CALLS COMMON DESCENT
INTO QUESTION.
The Board passed this 9-6.
No testimony from experts. No debate on the accuracy of the Chair's
statements. No recognition that several of the members wanted to
delay to discussion until the March meeting so expert testimony
could be taken. Dictatorship in Texas.
I worry not only for Texas school children, but for school children
across America. Texas in the biggest purchaser of textbooks in the
US. Publishers produce textbooks to meet Texas criteria. The rest of
the country is stuck with either buying these same texts or none at
all. America's school children may be forced to use textbooks with
pro-creationist language.
The Board meets in March and I plan to be there. I may testify if I
have the opportunity, but I bet they will try to ram this through.
===
One would think that by now the teaching-evolution-in-schools debate was
settled. But not in Texas, where the State Board of Education fumbled a
decision on curriculum standards last week. The struggle will be resumed in
March, when the board is scheduled to take its final votes on new science
standards that will govern what is taught in the classroom and in textbooks.
Skip to next paragraph
Seven of the boards 15 members are deemed social conservatives. What the board
decides could have an impact on many other states, because Texas is a huge
market for textbooks and publishers are often reluctant to produce multiple
versions of the same textbook.
The voting, a preliminary test of how the culture-war winds are blowing,
concerned whether to approve or amend proposed new standards that had been
carefully crafted by teams of educators and other experts. The new standards
dropped a phrase that had been in previous ones requiring students to study
the strengths and weaknesses of all scientific theories. Although that
language may seem innocuous, it has been construed in recent years as code
words for introducing critiques of evolution theory put forth by advocates of
creationism and its close cousin, intelligent design.
We were heartened when the board beat back, by a very narrow margin, efforts
to reintroduce the language on weaknesses. But the conservative bloc
immediately recouped by pushing through amendments that require students to
assess the arguments for and against common ancestry, a core element of
evolution theory, and its sufficiency or insufficiency to explain the fossil
record. How that differs from the old language of strengths and weaknesses is
not readily apparent.
The lesson we draw from these shenanigans is that scientifically illiterate
boards of education should leave the curriculum to educators and scientists
who know what constitutes a sound education.
==
It is a depressing fact that while 74 percent of Americans believe that angels
exist, only 25 percent accept that we evolved from apelike ancestors. Just one
in eight of us think that evolution should be taught in the biology classroom
without including a creationist alternative. Among thirty-four Western
countries surveyed for the acceptance of evolution, the United States ranked a
dismal thirty-third, just above Turkey. Throughout our country, school boards
are trying to water down the teaching of evolution or sneak creationism in
beside it. And the opponents of Darwinism are not limited to snake-handlers
from the Bible Belt; they include some people you know. As Karl Giberson notes
in Saving Darwin, "Most people in America have a neighbor who thinks the Earth
is ten thousand years old."
==
A Mississippi state representative wants disclaimers put in all
Mississippi public school textbooks that teach evolutionary theory.
Republican Representative Gary Chism drafted House Bill 25, which says
"theory" is subject to change in light of "new and confirmed
observations." He continues to write that no one was present when life
first appeared, "therefore any statement about life's origins should be
considered a theory."
"You know the Supreme Court has already ruled that you cannot teach
creationism alongside evolution," the legislator notes. "So this is just
a way of letting [those] kids who take these subjects know that there may
be another explanation of how we all got here."
The bill is currently in committee, but Chism says it has been met with a
lot of opposition.
"I am confident that this bill is...dead on arrival," he laments. "...I
don't think the [committee] chairman will even take the bill up."
Chism told OneNewsNow he would consider drafting another bill next year
supporting the teaching of the strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary
theory in public school classrooms -- and House Bill 25, he believes, is
a good way to test the water as to what opposition they might encounter.
==
If you're not swayed by academic arguments, consider the financial
consequences. Allow intelligent design into science textbooks,
lecture halls, and laboratories, and the cost to the frontier of
scientific discovery-the frontier that drives the economies of the
future-would be incalculable. I don't want students who could make
the next major breakthrough in renewable energy sources or space
travel to have been taught that anything they don't understand, and
that nobody yet understands, is divinely constructed and therefore
beyond their intellectual capacity. The day that happens, Americans
will just sit in awe of what we don't understand, while we watch the
rest of the world boldly go where no mortal has gone before."
==
BESE panel votes against banning teaching of scientific creationism or
intelligent design
BATON ROUGE ‹ A state education panel has voted against banning the
teaching of scientific creationism or intelligent design in Louisiana
classrooms.
Members of the committee of the state Board of Elementary and Secondary
Education said the ban, which was part of new guidelines being considered for
the teaching of science in Louisiana, is not needed because other language
in the guidelines specifically forbids the advancement of religion in science
classes.
Tuesday¹s vote came as the panel discussed how to implement legislation
approved last year that proponents say will promote ³critical thinking² about
evolution and other scientific topics.
Opponents of that bill have said it¹s a way of sneaking religion into science
classes and they pressed to have the ban on creationism and intelligent
disease kept in the guidelines.
==
2pe 2:5  if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald
of righteousness, with seven other persons, when he brought a flood upon the
world of the ungodly.

Every living thing that moved on the earth perished, birds, livestock,
wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind.
22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died.
23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and
animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the
air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the
ark.
==
As of 2008 a Gallup poll indicated that 50% of US adults agreed with the
statement "human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced
forms of life." Whereas 44% of US adults agreed with the statement "God
created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within
the last 10,000 years."
==
In a three-part guest essay posted at Carl Zimmer's blog The Loom,
Kenneth R. Miller responded to a recent attack by the Discovery
Institute on his testimony in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case. At issue
in the first part is the claim, found in both Of Pandas and People and
Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box, that the blood clotting system in
vertebrates is irreducibly complex and therefore unevolvable. After
rebutting the claim that he misrepresented Behe's claims in his
testimony, Miller proceeds to explain the latest scientific research
that undermines Behe's claims: "The lamprey, as luck would have it,
has a perfectly functional clotting system, and it lacks not only the
three factors missing in jawed fish, but also Factors IX and V."
==
Miss
Representative Chism has introduced H.B. 25, requiring that all textbooks in
the state that discuss evolution contain a disclaimer that evolution is a
controversial theory and that it can't explain certain observable facts about
the history of life on our planet.
The last paragraph detailing the Cambrian explosion, the lack of transitional
species, and the lack of 'instructions' to create complex life
- all of this is wrong.
==
Why Evolution is True (Viking, 2009), Jerry A. Coyne

Lauri Lebo's The Devil in Dover (The New Press, 2008)

Kenneth R. Miller Only a Theory (Viking, 2008)

Peter J. Bowler Monkey Trials and Gorilla Sermons (Harvard University Press,
2007)
==
The first antievolution bill of the year appears in Oklahoma. Meanwhile,
Kevin Padian and Nicholas Matzke discuss Darwin and Dover in the
Biochemical Journal, and a reviewer for The New York Times addresses "Four
Stakes in the Heart of Intelligent Design."
ANTIEVOLUTION LEGISLATION IN OKLAHOMA
Senate Bill 320, prefiled in the Oklahoma Senate and scheduled for a first
reading on February 2, 2009, is apparently the first antievolution bill of
2009. Entitled the "Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act,"
SB 320
would, if enacted, require state and local educational authorities to
"assist teachers to find more effective ways to present the science
curriculum where it addresses scientific
controversies" and permit
teachers
to "help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an
objective
manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing
scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught." The only
topics
specifically mentioned as controversial are "biological evolution, the
chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."
Unsurprisingly, SB 320 is a further instance of the "academic
freedom"
strategy for undermining the teaching of evolution; as NCSE's Glenn Branch
and Eugenie C. Scott recently wrote in their article "The Latest Face of
Creationism, " published in the January 2009 issue of Scientific American,
"'Academic freedom' was the creationist catchphrase of choice in 2008: the
Louisiana Science Education Act was in fact born as the Louisiana Academic
Freedom Act, and bills invoking the idea were introduced in Alabama,
Florida, Michigan, Missouri and South Carolina ..." Of these, only the
Louisiana bill was passed and enacted, over protests from the scientific,
educational, and civil liberties communities.
The sponsor of the Oklahoma bill is Randy Brogdon (R-District 34), who was
a cosponsor in 2006 of House Concurrent Resolution 1034. If enacted, HCR
1034 would have encouraged "the State Board of Education and local boards
of education to revise the recommended academic curriculum content
standards in science to ensure that, upon graduation, all students can
accomplish the following: 1. Use of [sic] the scientific method to
critically evaluate scientific theories including, but not limited to, the
theory of evolution; and 2. Use relevant scientific data to assess the
validity of those theories and to formulate arguments for and against those
theories." HCR 1034 died in committee in May 2006.
Oklahomans concerned about SB 320 are encouraged to get in touch with
Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education, a non-profit educational
organization that promotes the education of the public about the methods
and values of science and advocates excellence in the science
curriculum. As OESE explains on its website, "The formation of OESE was
prompted by the attempts in the Oklahoma State Textbook Committee in 1999
to diminish the teaching of evolution by the introduction of creationist
textbook disclaimers to be inserted into any textbook used in public
schools that discussed evolution. There have been bills introduced almost
every year since 1999 for legislation that would allow teaching creationism
in science courses; OESE has opposed all such attempts."
For the text of SB 320 (document), visit:
http://webserver1. lsb.state. ok.us/2009- 10bills/SB/ sb320_int. rtf
==
The Intelligent Designers designed the world to have the appearances
of being governed by natural laws. We should honor their intentions
by accepting those appearances as if they were reality.
==
Floridas Greatest Menace II: Objectionable phraseology
The great battle of the age is now on between Christianity and evolution, or
so said George Washburn. He was one of the many men who heard the call to pick
up the antievolution fight where William Jennings Bryan had left off when he
died. Drawing upon the wealth he had accumulated from dealing in real estate
and hotels, Washburn helped establish the Bible Crusaders of America in 1925.
God had chosen him for this task, he said, and he took on the job with gusto
from his Clearwater headquarters. Part of his grand vision was to sweep
evolution out of nations schools, but the first mission he set out on was to
get evolution out of Florida textbooks.
The fight over textbooks is going to be a recurring motif throughout this
history series. So, a little historical background is in order to put
everything in context. Theres more to the roots of the evolution/creationism
controversy than a simple black and white, God versus Darwin conflict. To
really see what motivated people you have to first get a feel for the time and
place in which they lived.
Society in general was changing in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and
education along with it. Following World War I a clash between urban and rural
living was developing, with many rural families taking offense at what they
felt was an alien invasion into their lives by the progressive cities. There
was a stark contrast between urban-industrial and rural-agricultural ways of
life. William Jennings Bryan expressed this theme himself in 1896, long before
he had ever taken up the evolution fight. He said, Burn down your cities and
leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again as if by magic; but
destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the
country. Prohibition was a hot topic around this time, with Bryan taking a
prominent role in that effort, too.
Education reform was a big deal. Schools used to be controlled entirely on the
local level, but now education was becoming centralized and school attendance
compulsory. This added to the urban/rural clash. There was the feeling among
rural families that urban societys modernizing was ripping the heart out of
long-standing tradition and family values. Education leaders were also
twisting themselves into pretzels trying to figure out how to provide a
challenging curriculum with college-bound students in mind while also
providing a quality education for the masses that had no higher education
aspirations.
With all of those problems boiling away, now toss textbooks into the stew.
Companies headquartered in big cities published the textbooks. The authors
typically had a social reform agenda, and their writing focused on civic
responsibilities. The biology books of the time made a big deal out of
steering lessons toward how biology applies to modern concerns like
sanitation, a healthy diet, and the effects of alcohol. Just like the
education leaders, textbook publishers tried to figure out how to juggle urban
versus rural and college versus vocational. In some cases the publishers
offered two versions of books, one for northern sales regions and one for
southern regions.
Textbooks of this time period were expensive to produce and difficult to
change. As a consequence, the textbooks tended to drive the school districts
curriculum rather than the other way around. Typically, if something was in
the textbooks it was taught in the classrooms. Enter evolution.
Late in the 19th century botany and zoology were considered separate subjects
of study. On the rare occasion when the two were lumped together in one book,
the subjects were still treated as separate. It wasnt until about the same
time general education reform was shaking things up did the concept of
blending the two subjects into one subject called biology become commonplace.
And what is a theme that perfectly crosses that botany/zoology divide to draw
the two seamlessly together? Evolution, of course.
Government was taking control of education. Children all across the country
were being required to attend school. The new subject of biology was seen as a
progressive educational subject that addressed important civic issues.
Evolution, an important aspect of biology, was being forced upon students and
their families for the first time. The perfect storm had developed. The Scopes
trial was inevitable.
Scopes was arrested May 5, 1925
Its fun to play the what if game with history. What if the Scopes trial judge
had allowed education and science experts to testify for the defense, as
Clarence Darrow had wanted? What if Darrow had not called Bryan to the witness
stand and grilled him on Bible interpretation? What if science had been the
theme of the trial rather than religion? Would Floridas Mr. Washburn still
have made his great battle of the age declaration? Well never know.
Washburn was probably absolutely beside himself with what he saw in Floridas
main biology textbook at that time: Benjamin C. Gruenbergs textbook Elementary
Biology. It was packed with evolution. Entire sections and chapters were
devoted to the subject. On page 483 is an evolutionary tree with man (in a
suit; how quaint) included. Gruenberg was even one of the witnesses Darrow had
wanted at the Scopes trial. Washburn vowed that this book had to go.
He started with Governor John Martin, but didnt get any satisfaction. Next, he
relentlessly pestered State Superintendent of Public Instruction W.S. Cawthon
and finally got somewhere. Washburn relied on the antievolution resolution
passed in 1923, saying that it had stemmed from the constitutions prohibition
of teaching religion in schools supported by taxes. Cawthon apparently bought
that argument and agreed to drop Elementary Biology.
It turns out that Gruenberg authored a new textbook that came out just as the
Scopes trial was about to kick off. This edition, Biology and Human Life,
avoided any mention of evolution. Textbook publishers had been spooked by the
Scopes trial. Spotlighted during that trial was the book Civic Biology, and
the negative publicity generated really upset its publishers. A few years
earlier, Gruenbergs publisher saw the coming storm and asked Bryan directly
what would make a biology textbook acceptable and inoffensive. Bryans answer
was simple: eliminating the objectionable phraseology [evolution] from the
text books. The result was Biology and Human Life, which replaced
evolution-laced Elementary Biology as Floridas textbook of choice.
Washburn was ecstatic. In a letter he wrote to Tennessee Governor Austin Peay
March 11, 1926, he gloated over what he called, Victory number one.
Now that the Bible Crusaders of America had notched a win, antievolutionists
grew bolder. There were rumors that 1927 would see yet another attempt in the
state legislature at outlawing evolution in schools. Some educators didnt like
what was developing. The Florida Education Association met in late 1926 and
produced a resolution directed at lawmakers, asking them to not mess with
evolution education. It was to no avail, though. Evolution instruction in the
public schools became one of the most inflammatory subjects during the 1927
legislative session, as youll see in the next installment of the Floridas
Greatest Menace series.

Floridas Greatest Menace III: Tongue-torturing tactics
Ascended or descended
Leo Stalnaker certainly didnt like the idea of dance halls operating on
Sundays. When the young man ran for a seat in the Florida House of
Representatives in 1926 he was keenly focused on the betterment of public
morals. He wrapped up his campaign speeches with dramatic poetry readings
asking God to guide morally upright men into positions of leadership. He
defended prohibition, consequently making a name for himself as a real law and
order man. The man didnt fool around.
Stalnaker (seen in the center of the photo here from the Florida Electronic
Library)won a Hillsborough County seat in the Florida House at the young age
of 28. He quickly set to work drafting bills outlawing the operation of dance
halls on the Sabbath and requiring all schools to fly the American flag when
school was in session. Stalnaker also wanted to give police the authority to
search vehicles for contraband alcohol with or without a warrant. However,
those issues were trivial compared to his signature piece: a law banning the
teaching of any theory that mankind either ascended or descended from a lower
order of animals, or any theory not in harmony with the biblical account of
the creation of mankind.
There was quite a buzz when the bill was officially introduced. Legislators
support for it was generally favorable, but for a wide variety of reasons. For
example, House Speaker Fred Davis revealed to a Tampa newspaper that he wasnt
too crazy about the bill, but that he couldnt vote against a bill of this
kind, because my people would approve of it. On the other hand, the majority
of newspaper editorials blasted the bill, calling it a waste of time that
would make the state a laughingstock.
Too vulgar
State colleges had to be careful in how they reacted to the bill. Their
budgets depended upon the good will of the legislature, and Stalnaker made it
clear that he wasnt above dangling that carrot if he had to. However, Dr.
Hamilton Holt, the president of private school Rollins College, didnt have to
worry about such things. He told the New York Times, Florida should not become
the butt of ridicule throughout the country as has the state of Tennessee by
the passage of the anti-evolution bill now before the legislature. The
colleges newspaper, The Rollins Sandspur, was proud to proclaim in its May 6,
1927 issue that Rollins was the first college in the state to take any action
in the matter. Dr. Holt wrote in that issue, Last year I declined a
substantial gift for Rollins College, which was proffered on the condition
that we should never teach the theory of evolution. I replied to the would-be
donor that no self-respecting college would accept a gift under any conditions
that limited its freedom of teaching.
A public hearing was held when Stalnakers bill went to the House Committee on
Education in April. Stalnaker was fired up, claiming that textbooks in the
states high schools and colleges contained things too vulgar to be mentioned
before a mixed audience. Speakers railed against atheists and agnostics and
blamed a rise in college campus suicides on the students exposure to evolution
in the classroom. There was opposition to the bill, but the education committee
rolled right over it. The bill was passed unanimously.
At least one lawmaker couldnt wait around for the bill to hit the House floor.
Near the end of April when the House was working on a bill that would create
the positions of two assistant supervisors of elementary schools,
Representative A.W. Weeks attempted to amend it with this language: to
determine whether any teacher is engaged in the teaching of atheism or
agnosticism or is teaching as true Darwinism or any other hypothesis that
links man in blood relationship to any other form of life, or is teaching any
principle or precept that is in derogation of the teaching of the Holy Bible.
The amendment was shot down. Even Stalnaker recommended against it, assuring
everyone that his bill would satisfactorily address the evolution issue when
it came up for its second reading.
Despite the antievolution bills easy passage through the education committee,
it ran into a roadblock on the House floor in May. As soon as the bill popped
up, some lawmakers attempted to postpone debate on it until the very end of
the legislative session. After some wheeling and dealing, though, the House
members instead shipped the bill to the judicial committee for further review.
This set off alarm bells for the bills supporters, and prompted the drafting of
a handful of compromise texts that watered down the language. Instead of
forbidding evolution, the proposed alternatives sought to affirm that no
teachings would deny Gods existence or run counter to the Bible.
Rather than helping, the multiple versions of the antievolution bill now
before the judicial committee actually confused matters. Even though there
were plenty of lawmakers in the committee who were antievolution, the language
choices split them. The end result was that the bill was killed there by a
single vote. But it turns out that state legislators have the amazing power to
raise the dead.
Evolution phoenix
The evening the bill was shot down in the judicial committee, antievolution
bill supporters held a rally at a local high school auditorium. George
Washburn of the Bible Crusaders of America (remember him from part 2?) was the
master of ceremonies. Legislators gave speeches about the merits of the
antievolution bill, and even former Florida governor Sidney Catts, who was
hoping to make another run for the office, offered his stamp of approval.
Could this show of support revive the bill?
The headline on a St. Petersburg Times article May 14, 1927 says it all:
Evolution Phoenix Plunges House into State of Chaos. Bill supporters
essentially halted all other business May 13 in an attempt to resurrect the
bill. If they could round up two-thirds of the legislators to help them, they
could override the judiciary committee report. Likewise, if opponents could
muster enough support, they could permanently bury the bill. Unfortunately,
neither side could reach their goals, so endless debate sent the session past
midnight. The news article reported: With a dozen members clamoring for the
floor, the speaker adjourned the body without action, and ordered the chamber
cleared.
Early the next morning antievolution bill supporters threatened to block all
other legislative business indefinitely unless their bill won approval.
Finally, tired of wasting so much time on the issue, a compromise bill was
passed by the full House:
It shall be unlawful to teach as fact in any school supported in whole or in
part by public funds in this state any theory that denies the existence of
God, that denies the Divine creation of man, or to teach in any way atheism or
infidelity.
It shall be unlawful for any professor, teacher, instructor of textbook
committee or commission to use or adopt for use in any school in this state,
supported in whole or in part by public funds any textbook which teaches as
fact any theory that denies the Divine creation of man, or which teaches
atheism or infidelity or that contains vulgar, obscene or indecent matter.
Violation shall be punishable by a fine not over $100.
Poet laureate on evolution
The hours spent battling over this bill had taken its toll. Legislators were
permitted to leave their reactions in the official House record, and
Representative F.L.D. Carr chose to express his thoughts in poetry:
I am now a legislator. Ah, woe to me!
Im between the Devil and the deep blue sea.
This bloody evolution has already got my goat.
On the blasted, bloomin question I dont know how to vote.
To gain my next election, I know the bill must pass,
So I guess Ill ape the monkey by voting like an ass.
The snark just got stranger from there. Representatives Fuller Warren and R.E.
Oliver tried to have Carr declared poet laureate on evolution. Carr then
offered House Resolution No. 60:
WHEREAS, The House of representatives has for the past fifty days had
inflicted upon its membership sudden and unwarranted outbursts of oratory; and
WHEREAS, Said infliction of tongue-torturing tactics has accomplished no
purpose other than killing many meritorious measures; and
WHEREAS, The efforts of the effulgent oratory opponents has resolved into a
contest of speed and endurance between Hon. A.W. Weeks and Hon. Fuller Warren,
of the Amen side of the House, and Hon. J.M. Lee and Hon. W.A. Mackenzie of the
Evolution side; and
WHEREAS, The fore-mentioned gentlemen never having been given unbridled
liberty to extol their spontaneous outbursts; therefore be it
RESOLVED, That during the Third House session, on the night of May 28th, these
gentlemen each be allowed such time as they individually require, to spout and
shout on the following subject, and which appears to be their individual
favorite topic: What I Have Accomplished in This Session of the Legislature;
and be it further
RESOLVED, That the members of the House shall judge as to the merits of the
tongue exercise and award to the winner of a leather medal, suitably engraved,
setting forth the fact that such winner is qualified to return to the 1929
session of the Legislature and be worthy of employment in the capacity of
reading clerk.
A few days later the antievolution bill appeared in the Senate, but lawmakers
there refused to waste time on it like their House counterparts did. A St.
Petersburg Times article reported: When introduced in the senate, the bill
immediately became a bauble, to be tossed back and forth between committees
until it finally found a resting place with no report. That doesnt mean that
the bill had no Senate supporters. Senate president John S. Taylor, who
happened to be vice-president of the Bible Crusaders of America, tried to have
the bill moved to the Senate floor without a committee review. Taylor wanted to
sneak it out there by referring to it only by bill number rather than its
title, hoping no one would notice the maneuver. Education committee members
caught on, though, and they stopped the bill in its tracks. The session was
nearly over and there were many other more important bills to juggle, leaving
the antievolution bill out in the cold. The bill was finally dead, this time
for good.
But like any good tale of suspense, there was a plot twist. The whole business
about school textbooks being full of vulgar material had caught lawmakers
attention. The senate passed Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 28, which
established a committee to investigate what were in the textbooks used by
state colleges. This move kept the antievolution fires burning as a couple of
motivated men made life difficult for some Florida college presidents. Well
take a look at the Florida Purity League and other textbook antievolutionists
in the next installment of this series.
==
THE FLORIDA ACADEMIC FREEDOM ACT
If passed, the Academic Freedom Act (Senate Bill 2692/House Bill
1483) would provide fundamentalist religionists the opportunity to
incorporate Bible-based religion into public school science curricula
to be taught on equal footing with a scientific understanding of the
biological, chemical and physical nature of the universe and their
interrelationships. It is an attempt to introduce an ancient, pre-
scientific era religious book  the bible  and, at least one
scientifically discredited text  Of Pandas and People, into science
classrooms for equal consideration along with modern scientific
texts, despite the fact that the basic science in the bible is
mathematically false and the science in Pandas is inaccurate and
misrepresents evolutionary theory. The mathematical symbol Pi does
not equal three as calculated in First Kings, 7: 23-24 and Second
Chronicles 4: 2-3. If such a travesty were to become law, the
consequences will be dire since it could impair students' critical
thinking skills and their ability to differentiate scientific from
non-scientific information, thus negatively impacting their chances
for success in the 21st century workplace.
Florida's Legislature is aware that national and state political and
economic survival depends on the ability of our scientists and
engineers to compete in a scientifically and technologically oriented
world by continuously developing new knowledge which can be
translated into technological growth. That is why Florida and Palm
Beach County spent time and money recruiting Scripps Institute as a
base around which to build a biotechnology industry.
The intellectual and creative minds required for such activities
depend on the early inculcation and cultivation of accurately
represented scientific knowledge in our public school classrooms. The
integrated knowledge gained from the biological, geological, and
cosmological sciences provides the best explanation( s) for the
history of the planet and the diversity of life found thereon.
Although scientists continue to engage in research on all aspects of
evolution and their myriad ramifications, there is near universal
agreement that evolution is a fact. Evolution is every bit a fact as
is gravity. Dozhansky stated, over 50 years ago: "Nothing in biology
makes sense except in the light of evolution." Unlike the Biblically
based science of Creationism or Intelligent design, the core elements
of evolution, as presented in textbooks today, have been repeatedly
tested and verified by scientists throughout the world.
Florida legislators should be proud that they passed new science
standards. These standards, if implemented properly, make Florida a
paradigm of what enlightened legislators should be doing and what an
enlightened public school science curriculum should consist of.
Floridians  citizens and legislators  should not permit the
dilution of these standards by pandering to ignorance. Science is
not about beliefs: in our democratic society people are free to
believe whatever they want to believe. However, belief is not
scientific knowledge: science is about knowing and how to know.
Students should be tested on their knowledge of well-understood
concepts as embodied in the recently passed state science standards.
Legislators should insist that teachers adhere to the new standards
and ensure that students spend their valuable classroom time
learning, through classwork and homework, the best knowledge that
centuries of scientific investigation have placed before them.
Citizens and legislators should not permit precious tax dollars to be
wasted in frivolous lawsuits that are bound to occur should the
Academic Freedom Act pass. That money could be better spent on
computers, science laboratories, science equipment, and library
resources.
Eric Hoffer wrote: "We have rudiments of reverence for the human body
but we consider as nothing the rape of the human mind." There is a
forty-plus-year history of Supreme Court and lower court decisions in
which it was pointed out time and again that Creationism is religion,
not science. In the latest case, Kitzmiller v Dover..., Intelligent
Design was shown to be biblically based and false. Intelligent Design
has no place in public school science curricula.
The time has come for the Florida legislators to protect Florida's
present and future: they must stop all attempts at deceiving the
minds of Florida's youth and to prevent unnecessary drainage of hard
earned tax dollars for lawyers. The Academic Freedom Act must not
pass.
==
Only a name, ID, and absolutely no theory whatsoever.
is amply presented by Behe and Dembski and No theory here, either.
Ah, the logic that lies in argument from incredulity. I can't see how
that could happen so it didn't. In the case of the bacterial flagellum,
Behe demonstrated at the Dover trial that he had made no real effort to
determine how a flagellum might evolve. He didn't want an explanation.
He just wanted to say it couldn't happen. According to a review of
his new book, Behe has backed off irreducible complexity completely.
Right. We will have a scientific theory of intelligent design when you
come up with a paper.
==
The only plans they seem to have is to intimidate teachers and confuse the
issue.
==
Florida Senate Passes Evolution Challenge Bill
Two senators from Tampa Bay squared off on the floor of the Florida Senate
today in a fight over how evolution should be taught in public schools. Plant
City Senator Ronda Storms introduced the Evolution Academic Freedom Act, which
permits teachers to challenge the theory of evolution in science classes. This
comes months after a state panel voted to require teaching evolution in
Florida. Storms says her law would protect teachers who want to offer other
theories for mankind's existence besides evolution. Tampa Senator Arthenia
Joyner argued the law opens public school classrooms to debate on creationism,
intelligent design and God's role in mankind's existence. Joyner said that
debate belongs in church and at home, not in Florida's public schools.The bill
passed 21-17 and now goes to the House. That chamber is considering a version
of the bill that would not just permit, but require teachers to present
"critical analysis" of the theory of evolution. The Senate rejected that
version of the bill.
==
Excerpt from:
http://static. cbslocal. com/station/ ktvt/docs/ 2008/April/ creation. pdf

Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Media Advisory
Austin, April 23, 2008
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board's Academic Excellence
and Research (AER) Committee today voted to recommend to the full
Board that a proposal for a certificate of authority to offer a Master
of Science degree in Science Education by the Institute for Creation
Research (ICR) Graduate School not be approved. The Committee's
decision was based on a recommendation by Texas Commissioner of Higher
Education, Dr. Raymund Paredes.
Commissioner Paredes based the recommendation on two considerations:
1) that ICR failed to demonstrate that the proposed degree program
meets acceptable standards of science and science education; and 2)
that the proposed degree is inconsistent with Coordinating Board rules
which require the accurate labeling or designation of programs.
Standard 12, Chapter 7 of Board rules requires that proposed programs
"shall adequately cover the breadth of knowledge of the discipline
taught" and that "degree level, degree designation, and designation of
the major course of study should be appropriate to the curriculum
offered." Since the proposed degree program inadequately covers key
areas of science, it cannot be properly designated either as "science"
or "science education."
In his recommendation, Commissioner Paredes stressed that he was "not
questioning the validity of religious belief as a means of
comprehending the world and universe around us." However, he further
stated that "Religious belief is not science. Science and religious
belief are surely reconcilable, but they are not the same thing."
The full Board is scheduled to vote on the recommendation of the AER
Committee at the April 24, 2008 Board meeting. If the proposal is not
approved, the ICR will have 45 days to file an appeal or 180 days to
reapply for another certificate of authority.

Commissioner' s Recommendation on the Request by the
Institute for Creation Research for a Certificate of Authority
to Offer a Master of Science Degree in Science Education
Dr. Raymund A. Paredes, Texas Commissioner of Higher Education
April 23, 2004
The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) Graduate School first
contacted Coordinating Board (CB) staff in July, 2005 to gather
information regarding the application process for a Certificate of
Authority (COA) to offer degree programs. Two years later, ICR
formally submitted a request for a COA to offer an on-line Master of
Science degree in Science Education. CB staff soon thereafter began
the review process which typically includes the following: preliminary
staff evaluation of the proposal; a site visit to the applying
institution by CB staff and subject-matter experts; preparation of a
draft assessment of the proposed program; response to draft assessment
by the proposing institution; review of both the staff assessment and
the institutional response by the Certification Advisory Council
(CAC); and preparation of a final recommendation on approval by CB
staff based on the preceding steps. The CAC recommendation then comes
to me. I have three options: I can accept the recommendation and carry
it to the Coordinating Board for formal action; I can reject the
recommendation and make another to the Board; or I can send it back to
the staff for further review. It is not unprecedented for me to
exercise either option two or three: indeed, in the last several weeks
I rejected a staff recommendation on a doctoral program proposal.
I first learned of the ICR proposal after the CAC had voted to support
the staff recommendation that the ICR proposal be approved. It was
clear to me immediately that the review process had been flawed. The
site visit team had included no experts in science education; one such
expert had cancelled her participation at the last minute and the
decision was made to proceed with the site visit anyway. Furthermore,
the site visit team members were instructed to focus on questions of
process and infrastructure and to disregard the academic focus of the
proposed program. In its review, the CAC followed a similar tack and
recommended provisional approval of the proposed program pending the
correction of certain problems related to such issues as institutional
governance and library resources. It seemed clear to me upon reading
the various evaluation documents that the central issue of whether the
proposed program met appropriate standards of science education had
been insufficiently addressed. As a result, I directed staff to
conduct a fresh review.
I believe that the second-stage review was thorough and balanced. On
January 7, 2008, we brought in a group of nine scientists and science
educators to review the ICR proposal. They examined proposed admission
standards, course prerequisites for the proposed program, syllabi and
textbooks for the proposed ICR courses, and the mission statement of
ICR. On January 10, 2008, we met with representatives of ICR to
address questions raised earlier by the group of scientists and
science educators. Shortly after the January 10 meeting, ICR
representatives requested until March 26 to submit responses to the
questions raised and also asked that their request for a certificate
of authority be deferred until the April 24 CB meeting. ICR submitted
an updated file for review by the requested deadline. CB staff in turn
reconvened a group of science educators on April 7 to review the new
materials. I have now received a staff recommendation, with which I
concur. I recommend to members of the Coordinating Board that the
proposal by the Institute for Creation Research Graduate School to
receive a certificate of authority to offer a Master of Science
program in Science Education not be approved.
My recommendation to the Board is based on two considerations, the
first of which is that ICR failed to demonstrate that the proposed
program meets acceptable standards of science and science education.
As indicated in a faculty job announcement, ICR requires that
applicants "be committed to young earth creation science and the
Bible;" in its current general catalog, ICR states that its mission
"is to study, teach and communicate the works of God's creation." Also
in the catalog appears this statement: "All things in the universe
were created and made by God in the six literal days of the Creation
Week described in Genesis...and confirmed in Exodus....The creation
record is factual, historical and perspicuous; thus all theories of
origin and development that involve evolution in any form are false."
ICR's catalog also states "The phenomenon of biological life did not
develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially
and supernaturally created by the creator." This statement runs
counter to the conventions of science which hold that claims of
supernatural intervention are not testable and, therefore, outside the
realm of science.
A primary educational goal of Texas and the country as a whole is to
increase significantly the number of high school graduates who have
mastered basic science and are prepared to pursue careers in science
in our colleges and universities. The submitted ICR documents simply
do not provide persuasive evidence that the proposed program will move
us towards this goal. In Thousands... not Billions, a text used in ICR
courses and submitted by ICR for review, the author Don DeYoung
writes: "One principle agreed on... is that the earth is young, on the
order of 6000 years old. This is not a working hypothesis to be tested
as to whether it is true of false. Instead, it is a basic conclusion
drawn from the biblical record of creation as written by the only One
who was present, God himself." At another point, DeYoung writes: "It
is clear that the One who created all things can alter physical
constants and laws at His will. In fact, most biblical miracles
require a temporary suspension of basic natural laws." Whatever the
ultimate merit of such views, they clearly stand at odds with the most
basic tenets of scientific work such as observation, testing and analysis.
Furthermore, the proposed ICR program is inconsistent not only with
the conventions of science but with Coordinating Board rules. For
example, Standard 12, Chapter 7 of Board rules requires that proposed
programs "shall adequately cover the breadth of knowledge of the
discipline taught" and that "degree level, degree designation, and the
designation of the major course of study should be appropriate to the
curriculum offered...." As our consultants on science education
emphasized, the proposed ICR program, in insisting on a literal
interpretation of biblical creation, gives insufficient coverage to
conventional science and does not "adequately prepare students in the
field of science education." Program reviewers also noted the inherent
difficulty of providing adequate training in experimentation and
laboratory workhallmarks of effective science educationthrough an
on-line program. Thus, the proposed ICR program meets neither standard
cited above. The key point here is this: the proposed Master of
Science in Science Education program inadequately covers key areas of
science and their methodologies and rejects one of the foundational
theories of modern science; hence, the program cannot be properly
designated either as "science" or "science education."
In recommending against approval of the ICR program, I am not
questioning the validity of religious belief as a means of
comprehending the world and universe around us. As far as I know,
science has no answer to the question of how life on earth began or
how the Big Bang was initiated some 14 billion years ago. Believers of
many faiths might well attribute both these astonishing events to the
intervention of a great Creator. It is entirely possible that science
may never answer these fundamental questions and that, in these and
other instances, religious belief supersedes science. But religious
belief is not science. Science and religious belief are surely
reconcilable but they are not the same thing.
==
How can they be sure humans and other apes aren't all one kind?
==
"Virtually every discipline and endeavour is presently under a
naturalistic pall. To lift that pall will require a new generation of
scholars and professionals who explicitly reject naturalism and
consciously seek to understand the design that God has placed in the
world,"
~William A. Dembski, Intelligent Design, Downers Grove, Ilinois:
InterVarsity Press, 1999. pp. 120-121.
==
Stones and Bones: Powerful Evidence Against Evolution (Paperback)
by Carl Wieland (Author)
==
TX
Creation College to Defend Science Degrees at Upcoming Ruling
A Christian research institute, which is seeking to grant science degrees in
Texas, is asking for prayers and support as it faces the final hearing before
state education officials next week.
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) will decide at its
regularly scheduled meeting next Thursday whether The Institute for Creation
Research (ICR) can grant an online master's degree in Science Education.
For the past few months, the school experienced several setbacks in getting
state approval for its program, mostly due to a heightened battle between
intelligent design and evolution playing out in the state and in Florida where
public schools were recently required to teach evolution in science classes.
The Dallas-based school has already cleared several hurdles, including an
on-site evaluation by THECB Advisory Committee and the submission of a
comparison study. Next Wednesday, ICR officials must also pass a
cross-examination hearing in Austin that will determine THECB Commissioner
Raymund Paredes's recommendation to the board.
A e-mail update sent Thursday by Dr. Henry Morris, founder of ICR, reported
that the April 23 hearing will also include an "unusual" half-hour session
which will be open to public comments.
Morris told The Christian Post that his contact, who has worked with THECB for
15 years, informed him that the Board never before authorized such a public
comment session.
Nevertheless, he said he was "confident" that the school's graduate program
meets all the state standards for private higher education in Texas.
"We think we have everything in order and then some," said Morris, who will be
among the ICR representatives participating in the hearing.
In his e-mail, which concluded with an endorsement of the film "Expelled: No
Intelligence Allowed," the ICR CEO invited nearby supporters, particularly
educators who taught science or higher education in Texas, to consider signing
up for one of the 10 slots for public comment. He also appealed to supporters
to pray for an orderly and fair hearing.
The science degree in question has been offered by ICR, which teaches from a
literal biblical worldview, in California since 1981. The program has four
concentrations: Astro-Geophysics, Biology, Geology and General Science,
according to the institute's Web site.
Critics of the ICR program have mainly questioned the science label of the
degree.
Eugenie Scott, executive director of National Center for Science Education,
alleged the institute taught "distorted science," the Dallas Morning News
reported earlier.
Despite such criticism, Morris said the school will seek state approval for a
science degree.
"We have been told second-hand, through our contact, that their objection is
that we are using the word 'science.' If we would just drop the word science,"
the approval would go through, said Morris.
He argued that students exercise critical thinking skills when they are taught
how to compare an evolutionary mindset to a creationist mindset.
"How can you be a critical thinker if you don't know what the other side is?"
he asked. "We think it makes a better student."
After Wednesday's hearing, the Advisory Committee is expected to issue a
formal recommendation to Paredes who will in turn present his own take on the
ICR graduate program to the full Board on Thursday. The Board will then rule
on whether to approve the school's science degree offering.
The ICR has the option to appeal within 45 days and/or to reapply within 180
days if the Board rejects the application. In the case of approval, ICR will
begin its effort to obtain accreditation from the Southern Association of
Colleges and Schools.
==
OK
HB 2200, by Kern, creates the Religious Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Act,
directing a school district to treat the voluntary expression by a student of
a religious viewpoint on an otherwise permissible subject in the same manner
the district treats the expression by a student of a secular viewpoint. The
bill requires each school district to adopt a policy on voluntary student
expression of religious viewpoints, which must include the establishment of a
limited public forum for student speakers at all school events at which a
student is to publicly speak. The measure also permits students to express
their religious beliefs in homework, artwork and other written and oral
assignments free from discrimination based on the religious contents of their
submissions. The bill also permits students to organize prayer groups or
religious clubs before, during or after school to the same extent students are
permitted to organize other noncurricular student groups. The bill also creates
the Model Religious Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Policy as a policy for school
districts to adopt; and
HB 2211, by Kern and Williamson, creates the Religious Viewpoints
Antidiscrimination Act, directing a school district to treat the voluntary
expression by a student of a religious viewpoint the same as it treats a
secular expression on an otherwise permissible subject and may not
discriminate against the student based on a religious viewpoint. The bill
directs school districts to adopt a policy, which shall include the
establishment of a limited public forum for student speakers at all school
events at which a student is to publicly speak. The measure contains a Model
Religious Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Policy. The bill also authorizes
students to express their religious beliefs in homework, artwork or other
written and oral assignments. It allows students to organize prayer groups,
religious clubs, "see you at the pole" gatherings or other religious
gatherings before, during and after school to the same extent that students
are permitted to organize other noncurricular student activities and groups.
HB 2200 was assigned to the House Education Committee but was not heard. HB
2211 was approved by the same committee and won approval on the House floor
March 13 on a vote of 71 to 25. It subsequently was assigned to the Senate
Rules Committee where it was not heard.
"We live in a country founded on religious freedom," Williamson said in a
press release. "This legislation is a step forward in protecting the rights
our students have in expressing their religious views at school. A student or
group of students can no longer be discriminated based upon the content of
their religious expression, which is the right our forefathers gave us all."
==
"Astronomy is not theology," said Copernicus.
==
Although many may not realize it, we are in the midst of a struggle to
preserve sound science education. A recent survey by the National Science
Teachers Association found that 30 percent of responding members had felt
pressure to omit evolution and related topics from their teaching, while 31
percent had felt pressure to include nonscientific alternatives to evolution.
It is crucial to resist such pressure, whether it comes from parents,
community groups, administrators, or school board members.
==
According to a recent Gallup Poll, 45% of Americans believe that God create
human beings in their present form at some point in the last 10,000 years.
==
2005 Creationism Trial (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District)
http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Kitzmiller_ v._Dover_ Area_School_ District
[link may be line-wrapped]

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial documents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District_trial_
documents

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Decision by U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III (12/20/2005)
http://coop. www.uscourts. gov/pamd/ kitzmiller_ 342.pdf

1987 Creationism Trial (Edwards v. Aguillard)
U.S. Supreme Court Decision
http://supreme. justia.com/ us/482/578/ case.html

1981 Creationism Trial (McLean v. Arkansas)
McLean v. Arkansas Documentation Project
http://www.antievol ution.org/ projects/ mclean/new_ site/
==
Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District:
U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

John E. PELOZA v. CAPISTRANO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

High school biology teacher brought action against school district, its board
of trustees, and various personnel at high school, challenging school
district's requirement that he teach evolutionism, as well as school district
order barring him from discussing his religious beliefs with students. The
United States District Court, Central District of California, David W.
Williams, J., 782 F.Supp. 1412, dismissed and awarded attorney fees to school
district. Teacher appealed. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) teacher failed
to state claim for violation of establishment clause of First Amendment in
connection with school district's requiring him to teach evolution, i.e., that
higher life forms evolved from lower ones; (2) school district's restriction on
teacher's right of free speech in prohibiting teacher from talking with
students about religion during school day, including times when he was not
actually teaching class, was justified by school district's interest in
avoiding establishment clause violation; (3) teacher's allegations of injury
to his reputation as result of allegedly defamatory statements made to and
about him were insufficient to support claim for deprivation of liberty
interest under  1983; but (4) teacher's complaint was not entirely frivolous,
precluding award of costs and attorney fees under Rule 11 and  1988.

John E. Peloza is a high school biology teacher. He sued the Capistrano
Unified School District and various individuals connected with the school
district under 42 U.S.C.  1983. He alleges in his complaint that the school
district requires him to teach "evolutionism" and that evolutionism is a
religious belief system. He alleges this requirement violates his rights under
the (1) Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment; (2) Establishment Clause of
the First Amendment; (3) Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and
(4) Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.(1)

He also alleges the defendants conspired to violate these constitutional
rights and attempted by harassment and intimidation to force him to teach
evolutionism. He alleges they did this because they have a class-based animus
against practicing Christians, a class of which he is a member, in violation
of 42 U.S.C.  1985(3).

He also alleges state law claims for violation of California's Tom Bane Civil
Rights Act, Cal.Civ.Code  52.1 (which provides a cause of action for
interference with an individual's enjoyment of rights secured by the United
States or California Constitution or by federal or state law), and for
intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The district court dismissed the federal claims for failure to state a claim
upon which relief could be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The court then
dismissed the state claims for lack of jurisdiction. The court also determined
that the action was frivolous. Relying on Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and 18 U.S.C.  1988, the court ordered Peloza and his attorney to pay
approximately $32,000 to the defendants for their attorney fees and costs.

THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT

The following summarizes the allegations of Peloza's complaint:

Peloza is a biology teacher in a public high school, and is employed by the
Capistrano Unified School District. He is being forced by the defendants (the
school district, its trustees and individual teachers and others) to
proselytize his students to a belief in "evolutionism" "under the guise of
[its being] a valid scientific theory." Evolutionism is an historical,
philosophical and religious belief system, but not a valid scientific theory.
Evolutionism is one of "two world views on the subject of the origins of life
and of the universe." The other is "creationism" which also is a "religious
belief system." "The belief system of evolutionism is based on the assumption
that life and the universe evolved randomly and by chance and with no Creator
involved in the process. The world view and belief system of creationism is
based on the assumption that a Creator created all life and the entire
universe." Peloza does not wish "to promote either philosophy or belief system
in teaching his biology class." "The general acceptance of ... evolutionism in
academic circles does not qualify it or validate it as a scientific theory."
Peloza believes that the defendants seek to dismiss him due to his refusal to
teach evolutionism. His first amendment rights have been abridged by
interference with his right "to teach his students to differentiate between a
philosophical, religious belief system on the one hand and a true scientific
theory on the other."
Peloza further alleges he has been forbidden to discuss religious matters with
students the entire time that he is on the school campus even if a conversation
is initiated by a student and the discussion is outside of class time.
He also alleges that the defendants have conspired to destroy and damage his
professional reputation, career and position as a public school teacher. He
has been reprimanded in writing for proselytizing students and teaching
religion in the classroom. His inquiries as to whether he is being required to
teach evolution as "fact" or "as the only valid scientific theory" have not
been answered directly. He has not taught creationism in his classroom. He has
been wrongly accused in the school newspaper and in the public press of
teaching religion in his science class. He has been harassed by the defendant
teachers and has received a formal written reprimand from defendant Thomas R.
Anthony, the school principal, wrongly accusing him of proselytizing his
students and teaching religion in the classroom, directing him to teach
evolution as the only valid scientific theory, and forbidding him from
teaching creationism as a valid scientific theory. Anthony further directed
him not to discuss religion or attempt to convert students to Christianity
while on campus. He has been criticized in a petition signed by faculty
members for threatening litigation over the rights of faculty members to speak
fully to the news media and each other.
Peloza's complaint alleges that the school district has violated the
Establishment Clause "by pressuring and requiring him to teach evolutionism, a
religious belief system, as a valid scientific theory." Complaint at 19-20.
Evolutionism, according to Peloza, "postulates that the 'higher' life forms
... evolved from the 'lower' life forms ... and that life itself 'evolved'
from non-living matter." Id. at 2. It is therefore "based on the assumption
that life and the universe evolved randomly and by chance and with no Creator
involved in the process." Id. at 1. Peloza claims that evolutionism is not a
valid scientific theory because it is based on events which "occurred in the
non-observable and non-recreatable past and hence are not subject to
scientific observation." Id. at 3. Finally, in his appellate brief he alleges
that the school district is requiring him to teach evolutionism not just as a
theory, but rather as a fact.

[2] Peloza's complaint is not entirely consistent. In some places he seems to
advance the patently frivolous claim that it is unconstitutional for the
school district to require him to teach, as a valid scientific theory, that
higher life forms evolved from lower ones. At other times he claims the
district is forcing him to teach evolution as fact. Although possibly dogmatic
or even wrong, such a requirement would not transgress the establishment clause
if "evolution" simply means that higher life forms evolved from lower ones.

Peloza uses the words "evolution" and "evolutionism" interchangeably in the
complaint. This is not wrong or imprecise for, indeed, they are synonyms.(3)
Adding "ism" does not change the meaning nor magically metamorphose
"evolution" into a religion. "Evolution" and "evolutionism" define a
biological concept: higher life forms evolve from lower ones. The concept has
nothing to do with how the universe was created; it has nothing to do with
whether or not there is a divine Creator (who did or did not create the
universe or did or did not plan evolution as part of a divine scheme).

[3] On a motion to dismiss we are required to read the complaint charitably,
to take all well-pleaded facts as true, and to assume that all general
allegations embrace whatever specific facts might be necessary to support
them. Lujan V. Nat'l Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871, 889, 110 S.Ct. 3177,
3189, 111 L.Ed.2d 695 (1990); Abmmson V. Brownstein, 897 F.2d 389, 391 (9th
Cir.1990). Charitably read, Peloza's complaint at most makes this claim: the
school district's actions establish a state-supported religion of
evolutionism, or more generally of "secular humanism." See Complaint at 24,
20. According to Peloza's complaint, all persons must adhere to one of two
religious belief systems concerning "the origins of life and of the universe:"
evolutionism, or creationism. Id. at 2. Thus, the school district, in teaching
evolutionism, is establishing a state-supported "religion."
We reject this claim because neither the Supreme Court, nor this circuit, has
ever held that evolutionism or secular humanism are "religions" for
Establishment Clause purposes. Indeed, both the dictionary definition of
religion(4) and the clear weight of the case law(5) are to the contrary. The
Supreme Court has held unequivocally that while the belief in a divine creator
of the universe is a religious belief, the scientific theory that higher forms
of life evolved from lower forms is not. Edwards V. Aguillard. 482 U.S. 578,
107 S.Ct. 2573, 96 L.Ed.2d 510 (1987) (holding unconstitutional, under
Establishment Clause, Louisiana's "Balanced Treatment for Creation-science and
Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act").
Peloza would have us accept his definition of "evolution" and "evolutionism"
and impose his definition on the school district as its own, a definition that
cannot be found in the dictionary, in the Supreme Court cases, or anywhere in
the common understanding of the words. Only if we define "evolution" and
"evolutionism" as does Peloza as a concept that embraces the belief that the
universe came into existence without a Creator might he make out a claim. This
we need not do. To say red is green or black is white does not make it so. Nor
need we for the purposes of a 12(b)(6) motion accept a made-up definition of
"evolution." Nowhere does Peloza point to anything that conceivably suggests
that the school district accepts anything other than the common definition of
"evolution" and "evolutionism." It simply required him as a biology teacher in
the public schools of California to teach "evolution." Peloza nowhere says it
required more.

The district court dismissed his claim, stating:

Since the evolutionist theory is not a religion, to require an instructor to
teach this theory is not a violation of the Establishment Clause.... Evolution
is a scientific theory based on the gathering and studying of data, and
modification of new data. It is an established scientific theory which is used
as the basis for many areas of science. As scientific methods advance and
become more accurate, the scientific community will revise the accepted theory
to a more accurate explanation of life's origins. Plaintiffs assertions that
the teaching of evolution would be a violation of the Establishment Clause is
unfounded.
Id. at 12-13. We agree.

B. Free Speech

[4] Peloza alleges the school district ordered him to refrain from discussing
his religious beliefs with students during "instructional time," and to tell
any students who attempted to initiate such conversations with him to consult
their parents or clergy. He claims the school district, in the following
official reprimand, defined "instructional time" as any time the students are
on campus, including lunch break and the time before, between, and after
classes:

You are hereby directed to refrain from any attempt to convert students to
Christianity or initiating conversations about your religious beliefs during
instructional time, which the District believes includes any time students are
required to be on campus as well as the time students immediately arrive for
the purposes of attending school for instruction, lunch time, and the time
immediately prior to students' departure after the instructional day.

Complaint at 16. Peloza seeks a declaration that this definition of
instructional time is too broad, and that he should be allowed to participate
in student-initiated discussions of religious matters when he is not actually
teaching class.(6)

The school district's restriction on Peloza's ability to talk with students
about religion during the school day is a restriction on his right of free
speech. Nevertheless, "the Court has repeatedly emphasized the need for
allowing the comprehensive authority of the States and of school officials,
consistent with fundamental constitutional safeguards, to prescribe and
control conduct in the schools

While at the high school, whether he is in the classroom or outside of it
during contract time, Peloza is not just any ordinary citizen. He is a
teacher. He is one of those especially respected persons chosen to teach in
the high school's classroom. He is clothed with the mantle of one who imparts
knowledge and wisdom. His expressions of opinion are all the more believable
because he is a teacher. The likelihood of high school students equating his
views with those of the school is substantial. To permit him to discuss his
religious beliefs with students during school time on school grounds would
violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Such speech would not
have a secular purpose, would have the primary effect of advancing religion,
and would entangle the school with religion. In sum, it would flunk all three
parts of the test articulated in Lemon V. Kurtzman,-403 U.S. 602, 91 S.Ct.
21O5, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971). See Roberts V. Madigan, 921 F.2d 1047, 1O56-58
(loth Cir.1990) (teacher could be prohibited from reading Bible during silent
reading period, and from stocking two books on Christianity on shelves,
because these things could leave students with the impression that
Christianity was officially sanctioned), cert. denied, -U.S. -, 112 S.Ct.
3025,120 L.Ed.2d 896 (1992).

C. Due Process

[5] Peloza alleges that some of the defendants made defamatory statements to
and about him, and that these statements damaged his reputation. He alleges
this was state action which violated his right to due process under the
Fourteenth Amendment.

The district court did not err in dismissing the part of Peloza's section 1983
claim which was predicated on an alleged violation of his right to due process
under the Fourteenth Amendment.

II. The Section 1985(3) Claim

In support of his claim under 42 U.S.C. 1985(3), Peloza alleges in his
complaint that the defendants conspired to deprive him of equal protection of
the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment; free speech under the First and
Fourteenth Amendments; life, liberty or property without due process of law
under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments; and the free exercise of his
religious beliefs under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. In addition, he
alleges the defendants violated his rights under the Establishment Clause of
the First and Fourteenth Amendments. He alleges that the defendants engaged in
this conspiracy pursuant to their class-based animus against practicing
Christians.(7)

Because Peloza failed to allege a conspiracy to do something that would
violate his free speech or due process rights, or his rights under the
Establishment Clause, his section 1985(3) claim predicated on a violation of
these rights falls. We do not decide whether free speech, due process rights,
or Establishment Clause rights, fall within the protection of section
1985(3).(8)

Schoolteacher John Peloza seeks a declaratory judgment permitting him to
"respond to student-initiated inquiries ... regarding religion" during
contract time. The majority opinion concludes that if Peloza's discussions
would constitute an establishment of religion, the District may permissibly
limit those discussions, even though such limitations restrict Peloza's free
speech. With this I have no quarrel. But the majority's premise is that any
discussions Peloza might have do constitute such an establishment, and I am
unpersuaded that we may reach such a conclusion in the case's present posture.

This is an appeal from the granting of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. As such, we are
not permitted to affirm dismissal of the complaint "unless it appears beyond
doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which
would entitle him to relief." Love V. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th
Cir.1989). At this stage, we know almost nothing about what past or future
discussions might involve. I can imagine a wide range of circumstances and
questions "regarding religion" which Peloza could permissibly answer without
violating the Establishment Clause. For example, a student might come to a
teacher during lunch and ask about Malcolm X or Martin Luther King's religious
beliefs, and how and why they evolved, or about the origins of Islam, or what
the seven great religions of the world were. Such questions would certainly be
"regarding religion," student-initiated, and during contract time. As such,
they fall within the class of discussions Peloza seeks to be permitted, yet it
is hard to see how the descriptive role a teacher would have in responding to
these questions would work any violation of the Establishment Clause.

The majority holding only makes sense if we presume that we know what kinds of
questions are being asked and what kinds of answers Peloza would give. In the
posture of this case, where we must reverse if there are any facts Peloza
could conceivably prove which would entitle him to relief, this is a
presumption we are forbidden from making. As a result, the majority holding
means that any response to a student-initiated inquiry "regarding religion"
during contract time, other than "Ask someone else," works a violation of the
Establishment Clause. I cannot join in such a broad legal holding, and indeed
the case law forbids it:


Roberts V. Madigan, 921 F.2d 1047 (10th Cir.1990), upon which the majority
relies, is not to the contrary. There, the court had before it a host of
particulars: the conduct at issue involved a teacher displaying religious
books and a poster reading "You have only to open your eyes to see the hand of
God" in the classroom. Id. at 1049. That court also had the benefit of a
district court factual determination that the conduct "created the appearance
that [the teacher] was seeking to advance his religious views." Id. As this
case stands, we know far less.

The majority impermissibly attempts to narrow the scope of Peloza's complaint
by relying on a written warning from the school district which Peloza has
incorporated into the complaint. The letter forbids Peloza from "attempt[ing]
to convert students to Christianity or initiating conversations about your
religious beliefs." Complaint at  45. Were this all that the complaint said, I
would have little trouble joining the majority. But the complaint alleges more;
it contends that "the school district ... has directed Plaintiff not to discuss
any religious matters during any of this 'instructional time,' including
student-initiated conversations regarding religion during lunch, class breaks,
and before and after school hours." Complaint at  3. This allegation we must
take as true. If all that lies behind it is the far narrower warning the
majority cites, then Peloza's case will not be long for this world. But we may
not presume that this is so.

I believe that, in a broad range of cases, the majority and I could agree
about what would or would not constitute a violation of the Establishment
Clause. But the majority errs in presuming to know that what is at stake here
is Peloza's right to "discuss his religious beliefs" with students. In doing
so, it ignores the fact that this is a Rule 12(b)(6) case. More generally, it
gives short shrift to the possibility that we may well be limiting free speech
more broadly than the state's compelling interest in avoiding an establishment
of religion would warrant.
==
Creationist College Advances in Texas

Texas is fast becoming a key state not only in debates over evolution but over
what kind of government scrutiny is important and legitimate when reviewing
colleges with particular ideologies.
On Friday, an advisory committee to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating
Board recommended that the state allow the Institute for Creation Research to
start offering online masters degrees in science education. The institute,
which has been based in California, where it operates a museum and many
programs for people who dont believe in evolution, is relocating to Dallas,
where it hopes to expand its online education offerings.
In Texas, the institute needs either regional accreditation (for which is
applying, but which will take some time) or state approval to offer degrees.
Some science groups are aghast by the idea that Texas would authorize masters
degrees in science education that are based on complete opposition to
evolution and literal acceptance of the Bible. And these groups are
particularly concerned because the students in these programs would be people
who are or want to be school teachers.
Complicating matters, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board will be
taking up the issue in the wake of an August ruling by the Texas Supreme Court
questioning the grounds on which the board had evaluated seminaries and warning
the board not to impose secular values on seminaries. The ruling was seen at
the time as making it harder for the state to deny licenses to religious
institutions.
Raymund A. Paredes, commissioner of higher education for Texas, stressed in an
interview Sunday that the advisory panels vote was just that: advisory. But he
noted that the boards decision next month would be sensitive and said he would
be asking the boards general counsel to study the impact of the August Supreme
Court decision on the issue.
Officials of the Institute for Creation Research could not be reached for
comment, but there is extensive information about the institutes programs on
its Web site. The list of courses required for the master of science education
includes a number that are fairly standard ("Advanced Educational Psychology
and Instructional Design, for example), but also some that are not.
Advanced Studies in Creationism features this description: Scientific study of
the creationist and evolutionist cosmologies; origin and history of the
universe, of the solar systems, of life, of the various forms of life, and of
man and his cultures. Critical analysis of both creation and evolutionary
theory using data from paleontology, astronomy, biochemistry, genetics,
thermodynamics, statistics, and other sciences. Study of geologic principles
and earth history in the light of Creation and the Flood; scientific
comparative studies of recent creation; application of principles of Biblical
creationism in various fields.
That language, and other comments made by institute officials, suggest that
students would be exposed to the science of evolution. But other material on
the institutes Web site suggests that one could not teach or study at the
institute while accepting the overwhelmingly broad scientific consensus about
evolution.
The statement of faith for everyone at the institute requires support for both
scientific creationism and Biblical creationism. The former includes the belief
that humans were created in fully human form from the start and that the
universe was created perfect by the creator. The latter includes the beliefs
that the Bible is literally true and free from error of any sort, scientific
and historical as well as moral and theological. Specifically, the statement
requires belief in the literal creation of the earth in six days, that Adam
and Eve were the first humans, and in the virgin birth of Jesus.
Paredes, the commissioner of higher education, said it was way too early to
get worked up about the prospect of creationism degrees being awarded. He said
he would be making a recommendation to the coordinating board based ultimately
on what is in the best interests of college students in Texas and that since
this program would train teachers, he would take an even broader perspective
of what is best for all students.
Asked for his views on evolution, Paredes said I accept the conventions of
science and I believe evolution has a legitimate place in the teaching of
science. But he declined to say that evolution should be taught as the science.
A lot of people believe creationism is a legitimate point of view. I respect
them, Paredes said. Im an advocate of the principle that when there is a
controversy and there are legitimate arguments on both sides of the conflict,
my pedagogical principle is teach the conflict. Maybe thats a possibility here.
In taking that view, Paredes is following the lead of many successful Texas
politicians, including one in the White House, who have argued that
anti-evolution theories that have been discredited should be taught alongside
evolution.
Paredes also raised the possibility that the board might approve the program
with a name other than science education. If there isnt sufficient
conventional content, he said, maybe its a matter of locating this program in
its proper disciplinary realm. For now, Paredes stressed that no final
decisions have been made.
Dan Quinn, a spokesman for the Texas Freedom Network, which describes itself
as a mainstream voice to counter the religious right, said he was worried that
Texas statutes may not give the coordinating board enough power to block the
awarding of creationist science education degrees.
Quinn said that the issue should not be framed around religious freedom, but
protecting students and their parents. The state is going to end up licensing
degrees as science that arent science. What makes it worse is that the degrees
are advanced degrees to teach science, he said. We dont want anybody to be
fooled that someone is getting a degree in real science when its not what
would be happening.

Science and religion
The USA already is consider by many both within and without the nation as a
wasteland of educationthe advent and push toward making faith a legitimate
science will destroy what little credibility exists in online education. To
ignore hundreds of years of scientific research and writing is tantamount to
the Flat Earth Society and places Galileo and others in the role of hacks. For
the Texas Board of Education or any accrediting agency to consider the
absurdity of a Master of Science Education in the myth of creationism is
tantamount to backsliding into the Middle Ages where emotions ruled over
reason and logic.
Theme parks already exist showing mortal beings walking beside dinosaursan
fantasy not even considered by Disney but backed by millions. If this
continues, biblical literalists can ultimate return to biblical dietary laws
forbidding the eating of shellfish, the wearing of synthetic fibers, and
devolve to the insanity of fundamentalist theocracies such as those today
expounding shariah (law, seen as deriving from the Koran, hadith, ijma , and
qiyasnot just the Koran), and ultimately TV, computers, and all science as we
know it will be erased in a manner similar to the Taliban (theological
students) tossing TVs out of the windows in Pakistan, and blowing up the
ancient Buddhas along the Silk Trail.
It is time that thinking individuals stand up against this insanity, and
demand that state boards judge on provable realities not personal beliefs.
Who would hire these graduates
Im surprised by the Chicken Little reaction from opponents of creation
science. Do you really think this degree program is going to create a deluge
of secondary teachers who denounce evolution in public school classrooms
across the nation ?
The graduates of this program will be hired by Christian schools. Putting
aside the creation science debate, this online degree program will likely
improve the overall level of education in thousands of Christian schools
across the country.

teach the controversy
The success of the Discovery Institutes persistent message of teach the
controversy is reflected in the Commissioners apparent support of this
seductive approach. Americans want to be fair and, as a result, if there is a
controversy, the reaction that it is only fair to teach both sides. However,
its not fair to teach as science, material that is not supported by evidence
and misconstrues the history and nature of the natural world. The fairness
concept was put to test in California during R. Reagans time as Governor when
there was a concerted effort to give equal time to creationism and evolution.
A group of satanists then argued for equal time as well. The use of fairness
in determining what should be included in the science curriculum gets messy!
In considering the place of creationism in the science curriculum, the first
consideration must be given to the evidence that supports its conceptual
framework. Evidence that the earth was created in 6 days and is very young is
lacking. Its not fair to teach that it is.

Not just Christian Schools
It is untrue that only Christian schools will hire these potential graduates
of science". There is already a majority unbelievably of Americans who dont
believe in evolution.
There are many public school teachers who, either lacking science degrees and
teaching science because the district cannot attract qualified applicants
often in rural or poor urban districts or science teachers who have drunk the
Kool Aid and teach the controversy despite the fact that Creationism cannot be
tested according to the scientific method.
Ray Paredes is a smooth politician, as one with any influence in Texas has to
be to survive. Whats clear is that he is slicing and dicing and very evasive
in his comments. He mentions giving them accreditation but maybe in another
discipline, not science. What is not clear is whether the Commissioners as a
whole will either fold to the Christian Taliban in Texas or stand up for
legitimacy and sanity

Absurdity
Call it a degree in religion or philosophy but you cannot call this a degree
in science. Im not an academic(barely graduating with a degree in psychology)
but my understanding of science is that it is the pursuit of understanding
that relies on a very disciplined approach to problem solving an approach
that has and is serving the betterment of mankind. To contend that certain
gaps that are unexplained by science proves the existence of a benevolent
creator, or that the Bible a book written by men 2000 years ago is the
definitive guide to life is just absurd. If we had pursued such a line of
thinking we would still be living in the dark ages. That we are even having
this debate in 2007 is a greater absurdity. What makes this course so
different than that of the Islamist radicals who believe women represent too
great a temptation to men and should be covered when in public....You may say
that it is different but it isnt really it is suggesting that our intellect is
too small to grasp the workings of universe or in the case of Islamists we
cannot be expected to control our primal urges....
Wake up Texas!

Educational Freedom
As an American citizen who has worked overseas among people with very
different world views, I find the concern over ICRs educational program to be
unnecessary. People around the world do use education to teach everything from
atheism to creationism. Many public schools outside of the USA also teach their
local religion in the classroom. What it ultimately comes down to is the right
of free citizens to teach and to study at institutions whose world view or
philosophy of education they accept. It is faulty to compare belief in a flat
earth with belief in God or creation. Technology readily verifies the earths
current situation. What happened in ancient history, on the other hand, is
based on various assumptions and on what sources of information one views as
reliable.

PISA Rankings America Tanking
Results released today from the 2006 Program for International Student
Assessment (PISA) show that the average science achievement of American
15-year-olds was significantly below the OECD average, comparable to
performance in the Slovak Republic and non-OECD countries like Latvia and
Lithuania. In mathematics, students in the U.S. also performed below the
international average, comparable to non-OECD countries like Croatia and
Azerbaijan.The same holds true when examining the data for student groups. In
science, Americas best and brightest are at the middle of the pack when
compared to the top performers elsewhere, while the percentage of our students
performing at the lowest achievement levels is significantly higher than the
international average. When considering students socioeconomic status (SES),
both our high SES and low SES students perform below the international average
in science for each group, respectively.

By any other name
It sounds as if this institute is mis-named. May I recommend The Institute of
Biblical Inerrancy as an alternative? May I also suggest a course be added on
Science-Verified Miracles? I trust that somewhere among the course syllabi one
will find as a required text Jacobs most informative book entitled The Year of
Living Biblically".

Creation science college in Texas
So many times the debates over creation vs evolution appear in the light most
of the writers here cast them in: either/or. Either you are a real scientist,
and have NOT ONE QUESTION about evolutionary mechanisms (because, even in grad
school, one can be run out on a rail for asking any) or you are characterized
as an idiot. Why do non-beleivers insist that any belief, even based on tons
of personal experience of answer prayers, etc., makes one stupid?
To most thoghtful Christians, a belief without understanding is useless. And,
too often, whats really going on in evolutionary biology classes is a form of
rote memorization of what phylogenetic tree leads to what. If a student says
Well, where did the 28 enzymes needed for glycolysis come from? they are
derided
as if an ignoramous instead of encouraged to go and try to find out!
Lets try a different track-back in the 70s we used to say Question authority.
Maybe one reason Americans KEEP doing so bad on International science tests is
we simply will not encourage them to question-especiallly the details of
evolutionary mechanisms. Dont throw out the theory, just start getting kids
used to saying I wonder how that happened? again instead of saying life HAD to
evolve from a chemical soup, because theres no other way it could have gotten
here. God works better for me than panspermia-and no lab experiment since the
famous 1957 work of Stanley Miller has yet succeeded in making life from
non-life. Why not encourage kids to question why that is so, instead of
demanding they accept it happened because we said so?
Dr. Tony Husemanns comments are excellent. It sounds like his approach would
stop the arguements and put discovery back into education. Discoveries happen
two opposing ideas are allowed to test the other persons positions. Nothing is
discovered when when one side says this is the answer and there will be no
discussion.

Belief vs Fact
The quotes in this story highlight several of the issues that some proponents
of creationism like the Institute deliberately seek to obscure when they argue
for the inclusion of intelligent design and other creationist viewpoints in
science classrooms.
First, they correctly identify that creationism is a belief system. The tenets
of this belief system are built on faith, not on the rigorous scrutiny and
development of the system through methods of scientific inquiry.
Second, they incorrectly insinuate that science is a belief system. Science
deals with fact rooted in the natural, observable universe, not with beliefs.
To say that one believes in science reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of
how science functions and its place in society. Science is a tool that humans
use to explore and describe the principles that govern the operation of the
natural, observable world. One can accept or reject facts as they are
determined by science, but expressing a belief or disbelief in science itself
is tantamount to expressing belief or disbelief in a hammer, lawnmower,
computer program or any other tool. It doesnt make any sense.
Finally, the quotes clearly illustrate that some actors in this movement hold
to the principle that popular opinion should determine the content of material
covered in academic disciplines. The more one thinks about this contention, the
more ludicrous it seems. The content of academic disciplines is determined by
the practitioners of the discipline in the same way that the rules of a sport
are determined by the governing body of that sport. Neither the courts nor the
court of popular opinion are ever going to define the scope of scientific
knowledge. That is for scientists alone to decide.

Creationists dont even believe their own slogans
Maybe one reason Americans KEEP doing so bad on International science tests is
we simply will not encourage them to question-especiallly the details of
evolutionary mechanisms.
Dr. Husemann, what an offensive comment. My professors and research mentors
have always encouraged me to question not just evolution, but EVERYTHING. How,
exactly, do you propose to raise questioning graduate students if you dont
teach them the basic, foundational facts of evolution, physics, immunology,
whatever, when they are children?
Its funny you chose to make this particular statement, because at a recent
presentation at OU, Creationist William Dembski degraded college and graduate
students who dared to question him by proclaiming they were only speaking up
so they could suck up to their professors.
So elementary school children should be able to read and understand primary
research literature, but graduate students grilling Creationists are sucking
up?
Creationists speaking out both sides of their mouths is unattractive and
pathetic.

The proposal to offer Masters degrees in creation science is indicative of the
fact that we have become a nation of idiots. As someone pointed out the teach
the controversy approach is a ploy developed by the Discovery Institute to
push their nonsensical religious agenda. It is particularly sad that they are
targeting the children of our country. So rather than actually teach science
we have individuals like Tony Housemann suggesting that classes in
evolutionary biology taught by actual scientists are simply rote memorization
of phylogenies. This is absolute rubbish. In fact my students learn to
question anything that is not based upon emipirical evidence as well as the
important concept of falsifiability (see Karl Popper). I teach them (among
other things) that phylogenies are hypotheses of evolutionary relationships
that are based upon empirical data and also that all hypotheses are subject to
additional data collection and interpretation. In all cases they are encouraged
to disagree and discuss anything I teach them. After all science is based upon
challenging new hypotheses that are advanced in light of how well they are
supported by experimental evidence. To date there is no empirical evidence
that God even exists let alone actually created anything. If anyone has any, I
and the rest of the world are waiting. The little voice in your head or the
feeling you get when you see the sunset or read the scripture are subjective
evidence and do not count in matters of science. For thousands of years we
have begun to understand the universe in terms of natural phenomena. As we
have learned more we have banished most religious nonsense to the scrapheap of
superstition where it belongs. I agree with Garry Yeager and Tony Housemann in
that when a genuine controversy exists we should teach it but to accord
creationism, intelligent design, or so called creation science as valid
alternatives to evolution is like saying I should teach reproduction along
with the alternative- the spontaneous generation of life. I wonder if I would
be shouted down if I enrolled at the Institute for creation science and
started to question their belief in the inerrant truth of the Bible. Get with
it folks its the 21st century not the 14th.
Jim Bonacum, Assistant professor of Genetics at University of Illinois at
Springfield,

Believing in God does not mean a person is ignorant. This is my whole issue
with intellectuals". If someone doesnt agree with you, they are obviously
ignorant. I think the fact that you cant even possibly try to understand
another persons point of view shows who is truly ignorant. Are you afraid of a
paradigm shift? I think it would be great to have a creationist point of view
thrown back into the mix. Science is not the end all be all that you imply.
Its simply science.

Asking questions about evolutionary mechanisms, enzyme evolution and all the
rest is just what one does in science education, especially biology graduate
school. Contrary to Dr. Husemann, *not* asking questions would get you nowhere
in science. But giving up and saying Never mind. The Designer did it is
scientifically useless. Go forth and find evidence of a Designer doing things,
then come back and tell us about it.

Thin edge of the wedge
What it ultimately comes down to is the right of free citizens to teach and to
study at institutions whose world view or philosophy of education they accept.
Sounds great but is simply a dodge, as are the other Oh, lets just be fair to
the other side or lets question the scientific dogma comments.
Biblical fundamentalists should be and are indeed free to study and teach
whatever they want. They can and do set up their own schools and publish their
own scientific textbooks. And so it goes.
The difference here is that these so-called scientists (and their ideological
think tank colleagues) now want the state to certify their dogma as science,
even though it is in no way testable or vaguely scientific.
Having failed (so far) in Kansas and Pennsylvania, the inerrantists are
heading to Texas, where they believe they will have a better chance of getting
the thin edge of the wedge inserted into the discussion over legitmate science
education.
Teach creationism where it belongs, in a comparative religion or philosophy
class. Just dont pretend its science. Its not the other side to evolution. Its
a non-scientific, religious worldview that has no place in public science
classrooms.

Martianism
There are those interested in teaching the controversy. They believe so long
as there is a controversy, the only fair thing to do is to teach both sides
and allow the students to decide. Therefore, in addition to creationism, I
submit Martianism the belief that all Earth creatures, including humans, flew
from Mars in a wooden Ark, exactly 19,625 years and 2 days ago. Make that 15
days, allowing for leap years.There is exactly the same amount of scientific
evidence for Martianism as there is for creationism, so I respectfully request
that Martianism be included in all science courses, and that students be taught
the controversy.
Tony Husemanns argument is disingenuous. This should have nothing to do with
ones attitude, positive or negative, towards religious beliefs. Thats a matter
for comparative religion class. We are concerned about what gets taught in
science class. It actually doesnt have much to do with whether you think life
originated by Divine Providence, panspermia, or chemical reactions in a
primordial sea either. Evolution, the theory, also describes what happens
after life originates how species change and new ones arise. Creationism has
a different view. Its one thing to hold it as a belief, but not acceptable to
pass it off as content worthy of a science class.
If somebody told you that their religious beliefs dictated that steel is three
times stronger than aluminum because of Divine Providence rather than because
of its atomic and crystalline structure, and that they wanted to teach their
metallurgy class that way, would you allow it to count for a degree in
structural engineering and send the students off to build bridges?
If I were faced with that person, Id say you can believe what you want but you
better _teach_ the students the crystalline structure. And if your beliefs wont
let you teach the crystalline structure, you need to think about whether you
are qualified to teach this material. Even though you accept that steel is in
fact three times stronger than aluminum. Its not enough to teach the facts
right, you have to teach the generally accepted theory right as well.

How intelligently was I designed?
I am a reasonably religious person. I am not sure of an after-life, but I like
to keep my options open. Suppose there is. As I have grown closer to that time
when I might know for sure, I realize I have a fake hip, a few stents in my
heart, and my prostate has been zapped. Was the first me more intelligently
designed, or is this revised one better? Which one will enter heaven? (I do
believe the other location will be overcrowded with those darned atheists, so
housing will be available to me.) I just read that we are getting closer to
replacing genes that might be the cause of breast cancer, so what about all
the women who undergo this little improvement? Wait a sec, am I discussing how
our species might be evolving? Impossible, remember we were intelligently
designed. Hmm, I do have a couple of friends who resemble cro-mangens.

Disingenuous arguments
Okay, so all graduate programs encourage debate on evolutionary theory? Well,
maybe they have started to since I went to grad school, but, long before
having any creationist leanings, I recall asking about one of Fishers
arguments on the evolution of social behavior. Fisher was a kind of guru for
that field in the late 70s, and my two Ph.D. professors literally knocked over
their chairs, leaping up on the edge of our big, respectable conference table
and yelling simulataneously You mean you dont believe in the theory of
evolution!?!
It was then I discovered I had, indeed, touched on a belief system", not a
scientific argument, at all. I dont believe in gravity, was my response. I can
test it and verify it, and I dont need complex sounding thought experiments as
justification. I can actually point out the processes. Heres all I am
challenging the rest of the biological community with-what can we teach in
evolution that kids in HS, for example (15 year olds were the subject of the
PISA test) can actually test and verify for themselves? Let them try Millers
apparatus. Let them explain how the fossil record does support biological
evolution, and then dont dodge the anachronistic fossils or the fact that some
proposed ancestoral forms of birds (Microraptor) come eons AFTER their own
descendents.
And, may I submit this one for evolutionary consideration: get back to a green
version of BSCS. WHAT good comes of explaining how species come and go, if we
forget to emphasize extinction? Biologists, I suggest, were put here
(evolved?) to teach the rest of humanity what will happen to the human race if
we keep ruining the planet were on! THAT is something worth doing as
biologists, and especially as biological educators. All the rest of the
evolutionary debate, while interesting, might just ultimately prove moot-if we
die out before evolving past the need for a livable biosphere. (Oh, and as a
lefty", I hope youll indulge my obvious letter-reversals. No two letters cant
be reversed, I always say!)

Let them explain how the fossil record does support biological evolution, and
then dont dodge the anachronistic fossils or the fact that some proposed
ancestoral [sic] forms of birds (Microraptor) come eons AFTER their own
descendents.
Perhaps Dr Husemann can support the above statement, especially in the light
of the paper by Chatterjee and Templin in PNAS, which clearly discusses the
hypotheses for how Microraptor falls in the evolution of avian flight:
Chatterjee S and RJ Templin (2007). Biplane wing planform and flight
performanceof the feathered dinosaur Microraptor. PNAS 104(5): 1576-1580

Tony, graduate programs dont encourage _debate_ on evolutionary theory,
because it is too well established to debate. They ought to explain it, but
they dont have an obligation to devote lots of class time to things that are
wrong or have no explanatory power (ID being one such). The same goes for my
example about the metallurgy of steel and aluminum. Now, if you want to say
that your professors did not engage you in a polite explanation of why
evolution is well supported by the observations, maybe you have a valid
complaint. But that does not mean that you get to teach your _beliefs_ about
evolution and call it science.
Im an astrophysicist, not an evolutionary biologist. I frequently encounter
people who have misconceptions about astronomy, or even think theres some kind
of grand conspiracy to cover up that the Big Bang didnt happen. I figure I have
an obligation to try to educate them. But frankly, they are wrong and their
theories usually cant withstand even modest scrutiny. While Im happy to answer
questions, Im not going to present their views in class as an acceptable
alternative. Just because somebody believes some idea does not make it a valid
deduction about the natural world.

Not all science can be done in high school labs
Tony Husemann asks, (W)hat can we teach in evolution that kids in HS... can
actually test and verify for themselves? Coming up with such exercises is a
worthy goal, but if teaching was limited by what could be done in a high
school lab, huge chunks of science would be removed. Atomic physics, geology,
and astronomy all come to mind.

Dr. Husemann writes: Maybe one reason Americans KEEP doing so bad on
International science tests is we simply will not encourage them to question.
My university did not require a statement of faith in order for me to gain
admission. I notice that your K-12 school requires a statement of faith of
both your prospective students and your prospective teachers. Your employment
application also specifically asks prospective teachers to state their
position on evolution vs. creationism before you will hire them. Interestingly
enough, so does the Institute for Creation Research.
Your words are pretty. Maybe your actions should mirror them.

Dr. Husemann tells of professors leaping up and shouting You mean you dont
believe in the theory of evolution? as evidence that he had stumbled upon a
belief system. How laughable! Imagine a student who declared that he did not
believe in gravity, or the seriality of numbers, or the heliocentric model of
the solar system. Such nonsense would induce many of us to leap up and shout
out in incredulity not because the student had offended a belief system, but
because the students own belief system had led him/her into willful ignorance
of empirical reality. The worst of it is, as the intelligent design cabal
demonstrates regularly, such people are impervious to rational argument. One
is always tempted to shout, if only in the fond hope of awakening them.
Lets make this short and sweet. It would be taken for granted by any serious
historian that any ideology or worldview would partake of the culture in which
it grew up and would also be largely influenced by the personality of the
writer of the theory.
No less a genius than the evil Karl Marx noted that even after capitalism
succumbed to Communism, society would still be imbued with the class artifacts
and cultural values of the system that preceded it. Much smarter analysts than
I have noted that the whole system of Marxism, especially its sharp attacks on
capitalists as a class, was motivated by Karl Marxs envy of the much wealthier
industrialist/capitalist members of the Marx family.
In other words, major theories do not arise out of thin air. They come from
the era in which they arose and are influenced greatly by the personality and
background of the writer. (In law, this theory is known as legal realism.
Judges make up their minds on the basis of their prejudices and then
rationalize their decisions by pretending to be bound by prior case law. One
might call what happens with ideologies political realism. Persons make up
their ideologies based on their times and their life situations.)
Darwinism, the notion that the history of organisms was the story of the
survival of the fittest and most hardy, and that organisms evolve because they
are stronger and more dominant than others, is a perfect example of the age
from which it came: the age of Imperialism. When Darwin wrote, it was received
wisdom that the white, northern European man was destined to rule the world.
This could have been rationalized as greedi.e., Europeans simply taking the
resources of nations and tribes less well organized than they were. It could
have been worked out as a form of amusement of the upper classes and a place
for them to realize their martial fantasies. (Was it Shaw who called
Imperialism outdoor relief for the upper classes?)
But it fell to a true Imperialist, from a wealthy British family on both
sides, married to a wealthy British woman, writing at the height of
Imperialism in the UK, when a huge hunk of Africa and Asia was owned
(literally, owned, by Great Britain) to create a scientific theory that
rationalized Imperialism. By explaining that Imperialism worked from the level
of the most modest organic life up to man, and that in every organic situation,
the strong dominated the weak and eventually wiped them out,
Darwin offered the most compelling argument yet for Imperialism. It was
neither good nor bad, neither Liberal nor Conservative, but simply a fact of
nature. In dominating Africa and Asia, Britain was simply acting in accordance
with the dictates of life itself. He was the ultimate pitchman for Imperialism.
Now, we know that Imperialism had a short life span. Imperialism was a system
that took no account of the realities of the human condition. Human beings do
not like to have their countries owned by people far away in ermine robes.
They like to be in charge of themselves.
Imperialism had a short but hideous historyof repression and murder.
But its day is done.
Darwinism is still very much alive, utterly dominating biology. Despite the
fact that no one has ever been able to prove the creation of a single distinct
species by Darwinist means, Darwinism dominates the academy and the media.
Darwinism also has not one meaningful word to say on the origins of organic
life, a striking lacuna in a theory supposedly explaining life.
Alas, Darwinism has had a far bloodier life span than Imperialism. Darwinism,
perhaps mixed with Imperialism, gave us Social Darwinism, a form of racism so
vicious that it countenanced the Holocaust against the Jews and mass murder of
many other groups in the name of speeding along the evolutionary process.
Now, a few scientists are questioning Darwinism on many fronts. I wonder how
long Darwinisms life span will be. Marxism, another theory which, in true
Victorian style, sought to explain everything, is dead everywhere but on
university campuses and in the minds of psychotic dictators. Maybe Darwinism
will be different. Maybe it will last. But its difficult to believe it will.
Theories that presume to explain everything without much evidence rarely do.
Theories that outlive their era of conception and cannot be verified rarely
last unless they are faith based. And Darwinism has been such a painful,
bloody chapter in the history of ideologies, maybe we would be better off
without it as a dominant force.
Maybe we would have a new theory: We are just pitiful humans. Life is
unimaginably complex. We are still trying to figure it out. We need every bit
of input we can get. Lets be humble about what we know and what we dont know,
and maybe in time, some answers will come.

No One Can Teach Creationism Without Proper Training
The world of current creationism does not understand the Genesis text, and is
fragmented into various factions which teach misinformation, with doctrines
which vary from the false to the foolish. However, creationism cant be taught,
without the teachers first being trained with the facts. Otherwise they would
be teaching propaganda", and misrepresenting the Genesis text, and nothing of
value would be gained.
The world of science is mostly atheistic, which has been misled by the
falsehoods and foolishness of current creationism, and has blindly decided
upon unrealistic theories of our origins and history of life, in an attempt
to explain our beginnings and continued existence.
Yet the Word of God has always been true, even though those whom we thought
could correctly explain it, actually did not understand the text themselves.
Using correct literal interpretation, the biblical truth of Genesis reveals
far more about our ancient prehistoric past, than modernscience has ever known.
The book of Genesis does not contain any creation accounts". Chapter two tells
us about the origins of modern mankind, starting in about 7200 BC. The chapter
ends in about 7000 BC, with the addition of Eve, the helpmate for Adam.
Chapter one is the rendition of the Observations of Moses", which were six
visions given to Moses on Mt. Sinai, during a six day period in 1598 BC.
Chapter one covers a period of time that spans about 4.5 billion years, but
each 24-hr day was taken from the first week of each geologic area, in
biblical order.
The correct reading of chapter one of Genesis gives undeniable proof of the
existence of the Living God. The proof is Gods revelation to Moses, defining
seven geologic eras of the past, which Moses could not have known about on his
own. Secular science would not discover geologic time until 3000 years later.
Merely reading the first day through the seventh day has little meaning, and
has been called a constructed creation myth". However, in the Gospels, the
Lord Jesus reveals the chronological order of the days of Moses, to where
their true meaning is uncovered. Consider the following:
A. The Fourth Day of Moses, from Creation Week 1. Covers the period 4.6
Billion BC to 245 Million BCa) Depicts the creation of the (other) celestial
bodies
B. The fifth day of Moses, from Restoration Week 1 1. Covers the period 245
Million BC to 65 Million BC a) Depicts the creation of sea monsters and birds
b) Discovered life forms i. ichthyosaurs, mosasaurs, pliosaurs,
plesiosaurs,and archaeopteryx
C. The sixth day of Moses, from Restoration Week 2 1. Covers the period 65
Million BC to 42 Million BC a) Depicts the creation of herbivores, large
animals, and the remaking of mankind into Gods image b) Discovered life forms
i. eohippus, indricotheriumii. mankind of the period not yet discovered
These, and the remaining eras of geologic time, are given in the book Moses
Didnt Write About Creation!", published by PublishAmerica. Starting with the
Fourth Day, the book puts the seven days in chronological order, as revealed
by the Living Word.
The secular world of science may call this a convenient coincidence". But it
is extremely difficult to explain away the fact that the Observations of Moses
follow the order of the discovered geologic record of Earth, with visions of
the ancient life forms shown to Moses, that lived during those time periods.
Herman Cummings PO Box 1745 Fortson GA,
If the religious fundamentalists are so keen on teaching the controversy in
our public schools, surely they wont mind if I demand the opportunity to teach
the controversy at their churches. Fair is fair!
The State of Texas should not be involved in religion, religious doctrine or
accrediting religious school. The Institute for Creation Research should NOT
be accredited for science education. Theyre wasting my tax money with their
accreditation applications, hearings and all the staff time that state
employees must put into processing that absurdity.
=======


Forwarded from NCSE:

The Institute for Creation Research is seeking to grant graduate degrees in
Texas. Meanwhile, Glenn Branch offers his take on the Comer controversy,
the Alliance for Science is holding its second annual essay contest, and new
content from Reports of the NCSE is available on the NCSE website.

ICR SEEKS TO GRANT DEGREES IN TEXAS

The Institute for Creation Research, a young-earth creationist organization,
has cleared the first hurdle in its quest for authorization to issue
master's degrees in science education in Texas. The Dallas Morning News
(December 15, 2007) reported, "The nonprofit Institute for Creation Research
in Dallas wants to train future science teachers in Texas and elsewhere
using an online curriculum. A state advisory group gave its approval
Friday; now the final say rests with the Texas Higher Education Coordinating
Board, which will consider the request next month." According to a December
17, 2007, report by Steven Schafersman of Texas Citizens for Science, THECB
will meet on January 24, 2008, to consider the ICR's application. If
approved, the ICR will have two years to obtain accreditation for its
graduate school from an independent accreditation agency.

ICR recently moved its headquarters from the San Diego, California, area to
Dallas. In the October issue of ICR's publication Acts & Facts, its
president John Morris explained, "The possibility of moving to Dallas
surfaced when my brother, Dr. Henry Morris III, discerned that a central
location would be beneficial for ICR, with several possibilities for student
services at nearby affiliated colleges. The many good churches and large
numbers of ICR supporters living in North Texas made it a natural fit for
the ministry. When my father [Henry Morris] was still alive he approved the
move to Dallas, especially as a way to strengthen the graduate school. In
2006, ICR opened a distance education effort in Dallas, as well as the hub
of ICR's internet ministries. ... As additional operational functions were
assigned to the new Dallas office, the Board concluded that it was in ICR's
best interests to move the entire ministry."

The ICR's graduate school was previously accredited by the Transnational
Association of Christian Colleges and Schools (TRACS), a group founded by
Henry Morris; Henry Morris III presently serves on its commission. Texas
does not recognize accreditation by TRACS, forcing the ICR to seek temporary
state certification while it applies for accreditation from the Southern
Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS). As a first step toward
certification, a committee of Texas educators visited the ICR's facilities
in Dallas to evaluate whether the ICR meets the legal requirements for state
certification. The report described the educational program as "plausible,"
adding, "The proposed degree would be generally comparable to an initial
master's degree in science education from one of the smaller, regional
universities in the state."

NCSE's Eugenie C. Scott disagreed, telling the Dallas Morning News, "It
sounds like the committee may have just taken at face value what the ICR
claims ... There's a huge gulf between what the ICR is doing and what
they're doing at legitimate institutions like ... [the University of Texas]
or Baylor." (The committee members were a librarian, an educational
administrator, and a mathematician; none was professionally trained in
biology, geology, or physics.) Inside Higher Ed reported (December 17,
2007), "Some science groups are aghast by the idea that Texas would
authorize master's degrees in science education that are based on complete
opposition to evolution and literal acceptance of the Bible. And these
groups are particularly concerned because the students in these programs
would be people who are or want to be school teachers."

Although Patricia Nason, chair of the ICR's science education department,
told the Dallas Morning News, "Our students are given both sides. They need
to know both sides, and they can draw their own conclusion," the ICR's
statement of faith includes the tenet, "All things in the universe were
created and made by God in the six literal days of the creation week
described in Genesis 1:1-2:3, and confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11. The creation
record is factual, historical and perspicuous; thus all theories of origins
or development which involve evolution in any form are false." Similarly,
applicants to the ICR's graduate school are explicitly told that their
answers to the essay questions on the application help to determine "your
dedication to the Lord, the Word, and teaching creation science."

According to the Dallas Morning News's article, the ICR's graduate program
"offers typical education classes, teaching such fundamentals as how to use
lab equipment, the Internet and PowerPoint in the classroom. But it also
offers a class called 'Advanced studies in creationism. ' And the course Web
page for 'Curriculum design in science' gives this scenario: 'The school
board has asked you to serve on a committee that is examining grades 6-12
science goals. ... Both evolutionist and creationist teachers serve on the
curriculum committee. How will you convince them to include creation science
as well as evolution in the new scope and sequence?'" The ICR's graduate
school's website repeatedly declares, "ICR maintains that scientific
creationism should be taught along with the scientific aspects of
evolutionism in tax-supported institutions. "

The Texas Commissioner of Higher Education, Raymund Paredes, is to study the
ICR's application and offer his opinion to THECB. He told the San Antonio
Express-News (December 19, 2007), "Because this controversy is so
potentially hot, we owe it to both sides to be absolutely fair in evaluating
it. ... Maybe the real issue here is to put this proposal in the right
category. Maybe it's not a program in science education. Maybe it's a
program in creation studies. Then we have to decide whether that is a
legitimate field or not." The New York Times (December 19, 2007) reported,
"Asked how the institute could educate students to teach science, Dr.
Paredes, who holds a doctorate in American civilization from the University
of Texas and served 10 years as vice chancellor for academic development at
the University of California, said, 'I don't know. I'm not a scientist.'"

For the Dallas Morning News's article, visit:
http://www.dallasne ws.com/sharedcon tent/dws/ news/healthscien ce/stories/
12150
7dnmetcreation. 2b0d011.html

For Texas Citizens for Science's report, visit:
http://www.texscien ce.org/reviews/ icr-thecb- certification. htm

For the THECB committee's report (PDF), visit:
http://www.texscien ce.org/reviews/ ICR-Site- Visit-Report- and-ICR-Response
.pdf

For Inside Higher Ed's article, visit:
http://www.insidehi ghered.com/ news/2007/ 12/17/texas

For the San Antonio Express-News' s article, visit:
http://www.mysanant onio.com/ news/metro/ stories/MYSA1219 07.01A.Creationi
sm.29
51a43.html

For The New York Times's article, visit:
http://www.nytimes. com/2007/ 12/19/education/ 19texas.html



__._,_.___

==
The thing that strikes me the most about religious fundamentalists is their
profound LACK of any real faith or spirituality. That is precisely why they
feel so threatened by science. To them, religion is not a spiritual
experience, but set a of supposed facts. Such a view strikes me as tragically
limited and provincial.
==
The biggest problem for them is that chimps and humans
are so very close genetically. Nearly any definition
of "kind" that is larger than "species" means that
chimps and humans are the same "kind". That, of
course, cannot be allowed. So creationists simply
take the cowardly path of not providing a definition.
==
Creationists don't have to worry about that, they have one theory that
explains everything and they don't need any more than that. For them it
makes sense to hold to one theory (truth) that doesn't require thought or
the difficulty of learning facts. It is probably human nature to take the
easiest route and gladly grasp something that is simple, quick and
acceptable to those around you. Most of the creationist/ID protesters
have grasped the simple explanation of everything but cannot bring
themselves to consider alternatives that require more effort and more
learning. Facts are merely inconvenient and temporary distractions when you
know the Absolute Truth About Everything.
==
Religion has convinced people that there's an invisible man...
living in the sky, who watches everything you do every minute of every
day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he
doesn't want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will
send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture
and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer and burn and scream
until the end of time. But he loves you. He loves you and he needs money.
==
http://www.trueorigin.org/  creationist
==
Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution by
Lee M. Spetner (Paperback - Jun 1, 1997)
==
Biblical literalists are not allowed to think about
the Bible. That's because thinking often means
asking questions. If you ask questions, you may
get an answer that disagrees with your preconceptions.
==
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMpk7WerFWw  Hovind  defends creation.
===
Intelligent design is anything but scientific theory. Leading
ID proponent Dr. Michael Behe has conceded that "there are no peer
reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design
supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide
detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological
system occurred." He also agreed that that definition of "theory" as
he applied it to ID was so loose that astrology would also qualify.
===
Fundie's advice to his son.
You see son, we believe in an inerrant Bible. Anyone who has such a belief
is not supposed to actually ask questions or really even think about what we
believe that the Bible says. Nor should we consider the implications of such
things. God didn't give us brains to think about the Bible!
Instead He wants us only to provide pitiful and silly arguments against things
like evolution. For example, providing out-of-context quotes about evolution
is a part of God's purpose for us. You don't really need a brain to do that.
==
If the Bible is the inerrant word of God, then the earth is the oldest
object in the universe (Gen 1:1), snakes can talk (Gen 3:1-5), and Man
had dominion over the dinosaurs (Gen 1:26, 28).
==
Fundie books
The Genesis Flood by Dr. Henry Morris and Dr. John C. Whitcomb
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Dr. Michael Denton
On Two Wings -Faith & Common Sense at the American Founding by M. Novak
Darwin's Black Box by Dr. Michael Behe
Many Infallible Proofs by Dr. Henry Morris
The Privileged Planet by Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez and Dr. Jay W. Richards
America's God and Country - Encyclopedia of Quotations by William Federer
Rare Earth by Brownlee and Ward
Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells, Ph. D.
The Biblical Basis for Modern Science by Dr. Henry Morris
Evolution the Fossils Say No! by Duane T. Gish, Ph. D.
Men of Science - Men of God by Dr. Henry Morris
===
Vitter earmarked federal money for creationist group
WASHINGTON -- Sen. David Vitter, R-La., earmarked $100,000 in a spending bill
for a Louisiana Christian group that has challenged the teaching of Darwinian
evolution in the public school system and to which he has political ties.
The money is included in the labor, health and education financing bill for
fiscal 2008 and specifies payment to the Louisiana Family Forum "to develop a
plan to promote better science education."
The earmark appears to be the latest salvo in a decades-long battle over
science education in Louisiana, in which some Christian groups have opposed
the teaching of evolution and, more recently, have pushed to have it
prominently labeled as a theory with other alternatives presented. Educators
and others have decried the movement as a backdoor effort to inject religious
teachings into the classroom.
The nonprofit Louisiana Family Forum, launched in Baton Rouge in 1999 by
former state Rep. Tony Perkins, has in recent years taken the lead in
promoting "origins science," which includes the possibility of divine
intervention in the creation of the universe.
The group's stated mission is to "persuasively present biblical principles in
the centers of influence on issues affecting the family through research,
communication and networking." Until recently, its Web site contained a
"battle plan to combat evolution," which called the theory a "dangerous"
concept that "has no place in the classroom." The document was removed after a
reporter's inquiry.
Vitter, Forum have ties
The group's tax-exempt status prohibits the Louisiana Family Forum from
political activity, but Vitter has close ties to the group. Dan Richey, the
group's grass-roots coordinator, was paid $17,250 as a consultant in Vitter's
2004 Senate race. Records also show that Vitter's campaign employed Beryl
Amedee, the education resource council chairwoman for the Louisiana Family
Forum.
The group has been an advocate for the senator, who was elected as a strong
supporter of conservative social issues. When Vitter's use of a Washington,
D.C., call-girl service drew comparisons last month to the arrest of Sen.
Larry Craig, R-Idaho, in what an undercover officer said was a solicitation
for sex in an airport men's room, Family Forum Executive Director Gene Mills
came to Vitter's defense.
In a video clip the group posted on the Internet site YouTube, Mills said the
two senators' situations are far different. "Craig is denying the
allegations," he said. "Vitter has repented of the allegations. He sought
forgiveness, reconciliation and counseling."
Vitter's office said it is not surprising that people he employed would also
do work for Louisiana Family Forum, which shares his philosophical outlook. He
said the education earmark was meant to offer a broad array of views in the
public schools.
"This program helps supplement and support educators and school systems that
would like to offer all of the explanations in the study of controversial
science topics such as global warming and the life sciences," Vitter said in a
written statement.
The money in the earmark will pay for a report suggesting "improvements" in
science education in Louisiana, the development and distribution of
educational materials and an evaluation of the effectiveness of the Ouachita
Parish School Board's 2006 policy that opened the door to biblically inspired
teachings in science classes.
"I believe it is an important program," Vitter said.
Critics said taxpayer money should not go to support a religion-based program.
"This is a misappropriation of public funds," said Charles Kincade, a civil
rights lawyer in Monroe who has been involved in church-state cases. "It's a
backdoor attempt to push a religious agenda in the public school system."
Group has history
Former Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., a Christian conservative defeated for
re-election in 2004, attempted to open the door for such money when he
inserted language into a report accompanying the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act
enabling teachers to offer "the full range of scientific views" when "topics
that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution)" are taught.
In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court threw out a Louisiana law that would have
required schools to teach creationist theories, which hold that God created
the universe, whenever evolution was taught. In 2002, the Louisiana Family
Forum unsuccessfully sought to persuade the state Board of Elementary and
Secondary Education to insert a five-paragraph disclaimer in all of its
science texts challenging the natural science view that life came about by
accident and has evolved through the process of natural selection.
The group notched a victory last year when the Ouachita School Board adopted a
policy that, without mentioning the Bible or creationism, gave teachers leeway
to introduce other views besides those contained in traditional science texts.
"Many of our educators feel inadequate to address the controversies," said
Mills, executive director of the Louisiana Family Forum.
Mills said that his group didn't request the money in the 2008 appropriations
bill, and that Vitter's proposal "was a bit of a surprise."
Mills said his group is not attempting to push the teaching of evolution out
of the schools, but wants to supplement it. Yet, some of the material posted
on the Louisiana Family Forum's Web site suggests a more radical view.
Among other things, a "Louisiana Family Forum Fact Sheet" at one point
included "A Battle Plan -- Practical Steps to Combat Evolution" by Kent
Hovind, a controversial evangelist who is serving a 10-year prison sentence
for tax offenses and obstruction of justice.
Hovind's paper stated, "Evolution is not a harmless theory but a dangerous
religious belief" that underpinned the atrocities committed by Adolf Hitler,
Joseph Stalin and Pol Pot of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.
Looking deeper urged
"I've got so much stuff on the Web site I don't know what's there," Mills
said. "We think that in order to teach controversial topics successfully, you
have to teach both sides."
The group's "Evolution Addendum for Public Schools," also posted on the Web
site, offers a flavor of its concerns. The document rejects the evolutionary
connection between apes and humans, questions the standard explanation of
fossil formation and seeks to undercut the prevailing scientific view that
life emerged from a series of chemical reactions.
"Under ideal conditions, the odds of that many amino acids coming together in
the right order are approximately the same as winning the Power Ball Lotto
every week for the next 640 years," it states. "How could this have happened
accidentally?"
Kincade, the Monroe lawyer, said Vitter's and Louisiana Family Forum's motives
are not benign.
"What you have to do is look below the surface," said Kincade, who holds an
undergraduate degree in physics and has been active in legal cases in which
religious groups challenge science instruction. "It frames the issue in a way
that appeals to America's sense of fair play. The problem is, except for
fringe people, evolution is an accepted fact of science. It is not a hotly
contested issue. The general concept of natural selection and evolution is
settled and beyond dispute. To suggest otherwise is misleading. They are
trying to backdoor creationism."
Vitter's appropriation was contained in a database compiled by Taxpayers for
Common Sense, a nonprofit group seeking to reduce the number of earmarks in
federal legislation. Earlier this year, Congress agreed for the first time to
begin linking specially requested earmarks to the names of their sponsors.
Taxpayers for Common Sense has compiled thousands of them into searchable
databases.
Vitter said the financing request was submitted earlier this year and "was
evaluated on its merit." But Steve Ellis, of the taxpayers' group, said most
earmarks are not vetted by anyone except the member requesting it.
"Using an earmark to dictate that the Louisiana Family Forum receive the
funding to develop a science education program ironically ignores a hallmark
of scientific research, making decisions on the basis of competitive,
empirical research," Ellis said.
The appropriations bill is awaiting Senate action.
--
Most religions - including the American Jewish Congress, the General
Convention of the Episcopal Church, United Presbyterian Church, the United
Methodist Church, the World Lutheran Church, the Unitarian-Universalist
Association and the Roman Catholic Church - support evolution.
--
Because according to Wendy Cortez in her WDSU interview Wednesday night,
married Senator Vitter used a condom during their sex sessions--and took the
used condom with him so as not to leave his DNA material behind in the French
Quarter apartment they used.
--
Now we know why that clerical fraud Gene Mills made all those excuses for
Vitter immediately we learned he broke the law with the 'D.C. Madam.' Vitter
was making arrangements to send $100,000 to the Rev. Gene Mills'
religious-political organization.
==
Eniwetok Atoll in the Marshall Islands. This is a living reef resting on an
extinct volcano cone which comes up about three kilometers (two miles) from
the ocean floor. Drilling revealed about 1,400 meters (4,600 feet) of reef
material.
==
Fundie mother
She indicated that evolution could not be true because that would make the
bible false and therefore there would be no moral standards from which
to live life under.
===
TORNADO IN A JUNKYARD by James Perloff bad science
====
Fundies
--
"Dr." Henry Morris
Dr. Duane Gish

"John Woodmorappe" - supposed fundy geologist (although known to
be a pseudonym, apt for a pseudoscientist), "author" of "The Ark -
A Feasibility Study"; which is neither feasible nor a study.

Steve Austin
Bliss, "Dr." Richard,
Cumming, Kenneth B.
Deckard, Stephen W.
DeYoung, Donald B.
Franks, Robert H.
Morris, John D.
Vardiman, Larry
Baumgardner, John R.
Carothers, Linn E.
Chaffin, Eugene F.
Chittick, Donald E.
Englin, Dennis L.
Faulkner, Danny R.
Fliermans, Carl B.
Humphreys, D. Russell
Lindsey, George D.
Meyer, John R.
Osborne, Chris D.
Parker, Gary E.
Snelling, Andrew A.
Dr A A Snelling
Stark, James

"Dr., Dr., Dr." Carl Baugh
Claims to have a Ph.D. in anthropology from the College of
Advanced Education, an unaccredited Bible college on the grounds
of the Sherwood Park Baptist Church. He also claims to have
another Ph.D. from the California Graduate School of Theology, an
unaccredited diploma-mill in California.
===
Fundie beliefs
(1) The Bible is the Written Word of God, and because it is
inspired thruout [sic], all its assertions are historically and
scientifically true in all the original autographs. To the student
of nature, this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a
factual presentation of simple historical truths [even sic-er].

(2) All basic types of living things, including man, were made by
direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in
Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation
Week have accomplished only changes within the original created
kinds [whatever or whoever that or they may be - ed.].

(3) The great Flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as
the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent
and effect [odd that there's no evidence for this event
though...-ed.].

(4) We are an organization of Christian men of science who accept
Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The
account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and
woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our
belief [there's that word again...] in the necessity of a Savior
for all mankind . Therefore, salvation can come
only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior."
Above: the oath to which "Creation Scientists" must affirm.
==
It turns out that Senator Larry Craig,
R-Idaho, has been up to more than just allegedly soliciting men in adjacent
bathroom stalls.
Then theres U.S. Sen. Larry Craig, who as a House member 16 years ago
co-sponsored a constitutional amendment, the Community Life Amendment, to
authorize teaching the creation of the earth as accepted in Judeo-Christian
tradition.
And indeed, right there in the 101st Congress, 1989, there is (then
Representative) Larry Craig co-sponsoring House Joint Resolution 297:

JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to
the right of the people to allow voluntary prayer and the teaching of the
Judeo-Christian ethic in public schools.
SECTION 2. For the purpose of section 1, the term teaching of the
Judeo-Christian ethic shall include the Ten Commandments and the creation of
the earth as accepted in Judeo-Christian tradition.
===
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/08/answers_in_gene.html

Museum fight bites bureau
Scientist calls Creation Museum plug 'inflammatory'

PETERSBURG - The head of the Kentucky Paleontological Society is criticizing
local tourism officials for promoting the Creation Museum using inflammatory
language from the museum's Web site.
The Northern Kentucky Convention & Visitors Bureau on its Web site says of the
controversial museum: "This 'walk through history' museum will counter
evolutionary natural history museums that turn countless minds against Christ
and Scripture."
Natural history museums don't turn people against religion, counters Daniel
Phelps, paleontology society president. If they did, there would be regular
protests outside those museums.
"There's many people who are very religious, and they don't have a problem
with evolution," Phelps said.
"If the creationists want to say things like that on their own Web site,
that's their business," he said.
"I was pretty shocked that a tax-supported entity would do anything like
that," Phelps said.
The 60,000-square-foot, $27 million museum has sparked national controversy
with assertions that go against the grain of scientific consensus.
The museum declares that Earth is 6,000 years old, rather than about 4.5
billion. It also depicts humans as living at the same time as dinosaurs, which
scientists say never happened.
"We do list attractions on our Web site, and the attractions provide the
content, because they know the venues best," said Pat Frew, spokesman for the
bureau. "We simply provide a listing and description on the Web site as a
service to them."
Given the content's controversy, might the bureau consider changing the
wording, which was lifted from the Creation Museum's Web site?
"I think I'm going to stick with what I've told you so far," Frew said,
declining to comment further on that question.
Frew said he did not know how much of his organization's $2.7 million budget,
which comes largely from taxpayer money, has been spent promoting the museum,
because "we have a contractual agreement with the Regional Tourism Network,
and they promote the attractions to the leisure visitor. Therefore, we don't
have a figure in terms of how much is spent on promoting the museum, as it is
promoted in toto, not singularly, like all the other attractions."
Phelps, who has toured the place he calls the "Anti-Museum," and written a
negative online review of it, says he has no problem with the bureau listing
the Answers in Genesis museum on its Web site.
"It's a local attraction, and they should be listed on their Web site," he
said. "But they don't need to say anything negative about a regular
natural-history museum, and I just was amazed."
"Whenever you leave the state of Kentucky, people make jokes about Kentucky,
and this would reinforce the stereotype," said Phelps, an environmental
geologist and a part-time instructor for Bluegrass Community College in
Lexington.
He also is president of the Kentucky section of the American Institute of
Professional Geologists.
Creation Museum spokesman Mark Looy defended the visitors bureau's use of his
museum's language, saying their use of the same wording "doesn't necessarily"
mean the bureau "believes that. ... They're just using our language."
Natural history museums do turn countless minds against the Bible "when they
present an evolutionary view that's in contrast with what the Bible says,"
Looy said.
==
It should of course be pointed out that Phillip Johnson, the godfather of the
Intelligent Design
movement, has himself long been a proud and loud HIV denier.
===
George McCready Price first developed the primacy of
flood geology in creationism, publishing the "New Geology" in 1923
==
Any first year philosophy students knows any two ideas can be made compatible
with sufficient effort.
===
Young-earthism can't be defeated by science, since its adherents reject science
out of hand.
===
Stanley Jaki "Genesis 1 Through the Ages"

Davis Young's "The Biblical Flood."

Finding Darwin's God, Kenneth R. Miller

Dick Fisher The Origins Solution: An Answer in the Creation-Evolution Debate

Foundation, Fall, and Flood , by Glenn Morton

Creation in God, Man and History Eliezer Berkovitz

Good Genes: Emerging Values for Science, Religion, and Society (Paperback)
by D. Ames

Genesis and God   Holmes Rolston III.

David Stove _Darwinian Fairytales_

A Handy Guide To Rebutting Creationist Objections To Valid Mainstream Science,
August 4, 2007 ByJohn Kwok (New York, NY)
==
According to creationists, evidently God has been creating every few years new
species out of thin air, but stopped well short of the historical period, as
there is no historical record of an animal or plant appearing in a flash of
magic.
==
There is a very simple argument showing how the absence of the
20-plus persistent nuclides with a half-life less than 80 million years shows
that Earth must be at least 1.6 billion years old.
==
More Americans believe in the rapture than in evolution. This will prepare us
quite well to live in the shadow of Europe, China and India in decades to come.
Preachers will have more problems to pray about as factories close and people
starve.

Prof Richard Dawkins
"There are two ways of looking at the world - through faith and superstition,
or through the rigours of logic, observation and evidence, through reason. Yet
today reason has a battle on its hands.
Reason and a respect for evidence are the source of our progress, our
safeguard against fundamentalists and those who profit from obscuring the
truth. We live in dangerous times when superstition is gaining ground and
rational science is under attack."
====
Behe's hypothesis that the original first 'Designed' cell had all its future
complexity coded genetically but turned off was doomed to failure because
of the accumulation of errors in unexpressed genes.
The thrust of Behe's argument was that at the earliest stages of life, i.e.
at the biochemical or molecular level, there was no evidence of a natural
selection process such that scientists could infer that the most basic of
life forms, the cell and its components, developed in an evolutionary manner.
To the contrary, Behe and others argued that the basic building blocks of
life (the "black box") appeared to have been structured as irreducible
components finely tuned to make possible the ultimate development of the
greater complexity of life as we know it today.
===
Huckabee, Brownback, and Tancredo deny that evolution has validity.

In an opinion piece Brownback wrote in The New York Times to clarify his
position, he stated that while it is possible for evolutionary theory to add to
human knowledge, any aspect of it incompatible with the truth of creation must
be automatically rejected.
===
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Fossil_Sorting refutes flood geology
==
"What I have said, and that still remains, the Bible is true and cannot
be verified by science."

This statement, of course, is irrational. If the Bible is unverifiable, i.e.
untestable, then all this is is a subjective feeling, such as, 'I believe the
Bible is true, because I believe the Bible is true."
The problem, which already raised its ugly head during the
geocentrism controversy centuries ago, is that if the Bible is
subjective, then it's like poetry. You either like it or you don't.
It has nothing to do with being real. People claim that the Bible
is "God's Word." But of course, whenever it is found to say things
that are wrong in terms of reality (man was created around 6,000
years ago [Genesis 5, Genesis 11]; all mankind except for 8 people
were wiped out by a worldwide flood that covered the highest
mountains; the earth doesn't move, it's the sun that moves around the
earth; etc.), then they say, 'Well, it's God's Word, so it must be
true, so it's not really saying that because that's wrong." And
that's nothing more than a circular argument. So on the one hand we
have the literalists saying 'The Bible is God's Word, so it cannot be
wrong, therefore science is wrong,' - a circular argument - and on
the other hand we have the allegoricists saying 'The Bible is God's
Word, so it cannot be wrong, so we'll just change how we interpret it
so that it never contradicts what we learn about reality' - another
circular argument.
Both approaches are epistemologically flawed.
==
(1) Wexler, "Intelligent Design and the First Amendment: A Response," 83
Washington University Law Quarterly (forthcoming).
(2) Wexler, "Darwin, Design, and Disestablishment: Teaching the Evolution
Controversy in Public Schools," 56 Vanderbilt Law Review 749 (2003).
(3) Wexler, "Of Pandas, People, and the First Amendment: The Constitutionality
of Teaching Intelligent Design in the Public Schools," 49 Stanford Law Review
439 (1997).
(4) Brauer, Forrest, and Gey, "Is it science yet? Intelligent design
creationism and the Constitution," 83:1 Washington University Law Quarterly
(2005). (1Mb PDF.)
======
This is the same kind of silly, frivolous response that creationists always
make. Funny how they question the "authority" of scientists but not of
priests, of carbon-dating tests but not ancient texts. The difference between
"faith" and scientific observation is that you can CHECK on scientific claims
and methods, but there is no possible check you can perform on religious
claims. Scientists do not "believe" things blindly; in fact, they love to
critique and debunk each other. What is really sad is that religionists spend
so much time "believing"--and depend on it so thoroughly--that they assume
everyone and everything works the same way, on "blind faith."
In attempting to call into question the validity of science by claiming it
shares common features with supernatural religion, he's at the same time
undermining his own position. After all, if scientists are merely basing their
views on "faith", then they're not to be believed. This equally undermines the
supernaturalist (or magical causation) position.
==
David Ray Griffin's book Two Great Truths: A New Synthesis of Scientific
Naturalism and Christian Faith

The Counter-Creationism Handbook (Paperback)
by Mark Isaak (Author)

Niles Eldredge The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism

http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/

Evolution Under the Microscope (Paperback)
by David W. Swift (Author)
===
The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology expressed its concern about the
misrepresentation of science in Answers in Genesis's creation "museum" in a
press release issued on July 17, 2007. "The Creation Museum's fossil
exhibitions, though artistically impressive, include a vast number of
scientific errors, large and small," the SVP explained. "These errors
range from implying that the Earth's sedimentary rocks were deposited by a
single biblical Flood, to claiming that humans and dinosaurs lived
alongside one another, to denouncing the reality of transitional fossils."
Kevin Padian, a paleontologist at the University of California, Berkeley,
and president of NCSE's board of directors, said, with reference to Answers
in Genesis's president, "Ken Ham is not recognized as a scientist or
educator among experts in the fields of geology and paleontology, and his
views on the interpretation of Biblical texts are extremist. Visitors to
his 'museum' may arrive knowing little about these sciences, but they will
leave misled and intellectually deceived." Kristi Curry Rogers of the Science
Museum of Minnesota added, "the Creation Museum is using the disguise of
science museums and centers without including an iota of science inside."
Catherine Badgley, a professor at the University of Michigan and president
of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, further lamented the
misinformation presented at AiG's museum, commenting, "according to the
Creation Museum, the history of life is short, sin-ridden, and laden with
moralizing imperatives. In contrast, the real fossil record shows that
this long history is brimming with discoveries of new kinds of animals,
plants, and environments, inviting people to use their unusual minds to
question, to reason, and to wonder at life's remarkable variety."
Founded in 1940, the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology is the leading
North American scientific and educational organization concerned with
vertebrate paleontology. According to its position statement on evolution
education, "Evolution is fundamental to the teaching of good biology and
geology, and the vertebrate fossil record is an excellent set of examples
of the patterns and processes of evolution through time. ... The record of
vertebrate evolution is exciting, inspirational, instructive, and
enjoyable, and it is our view that everyone should have the opportunity and
the privilege to understand it as paleontologists do."
==
When Science magazine conducted a survey of 34 countries last
August(2006), Turkey had the second-lowest acceptance rate of the theory of
evolution (the United States had the lowest).
====
"If the Bible is the Word of God and it is and if Jesus Christ is
the infallible and omniscient Creator and He is then it must be
firmly believed that the world and all things in it were created in
six natural days and that the long geological ages of evolutionary
history never really took place at all."
[Henry Morris, Scientific Creationism, Creation-Life Publishers, San
Diego 1974, p. 251]

"It is more productive to take the Bible literally and then to
interpret the actual facts of science within its revelatory framework."
[Henry Morris, Troubled Waters of Evolution, Creation-Life Publishers,
San Diego, 1974, p. 184]
=====
"I firmly believe that each human person, regardless of circumstance, was
willed into being and made for a purpose. While no stone should be left
unturned in seeking to discover the nature of mans origins, we can say with
conviction that we know with certainty at least part of the outcome. Man was
not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created
order."

Brownback does NOT believe in Evolution.
Would-be president Sam Brownback recently wrote in the New York Times that any
scientific findings conflicting with his faith should be firmly rejected. In
the same vein, Jonathan Wells a senior fellow of the ID advocacy group Center
for Science and Culture at the Discovery Instituterecently wrote, The vast
majority of Americans reject Darwinism for good reasons: it doesnt fit the
scientific evidence, and it contradicts a central tenet of Christianity.
==
Antievolutionist appointed to head Texas state board of education
(National Center for Science Education, 7/26/2007)

On July 17, 2007, Don McLeroy was appointed by Texas governor Rick
Perry (R) to chair the state board of education, succeeding Geraldine
Miller. A member of the board for the last eight years, McLeroy was
described by the Dallas Morning News (July 18, 2007) as "aligned with
social conservative groups known for their strong stands on
evolution, sexual abstinence and other heated topics covered in
textbooks" and as "[o]ne of four board members who voted against
current high school biology books because of their failure to list
weaknesses in the theory of evolution."
In a statement issued on July 17, 2007, Texas Freedom Network's
president Kathy Miller chided Governor Perry for his choice,
writing, "Texas parents should be troubled that the governor has
appointed as head of the state board a clear ideologue who has
repeatedly put his own personal and political agendas ahead of sound
science, good health and solid textbooks for students. Even worse,
Mr. McLeroy will now be in charge of the board's scheduled revision
of the state's science curriculum standards, an area where he has
already cast his lot with extremists who want to censor what our
schoolchildren learn."
The state's newspapers also expressed concern about McLeroy.
Referring to previous ideological struggles in which the board was
involved, the Dallas Morning News (July 19, 2007) worried, "The
elevation of veteran board member Don McLeroy to the chairman's post
raises concerns that the board is headed back in that direction," and
urged McLeroy to steer clear of "the bitterness of past culture
wars." Similarly, the Austin American-Statesman (July 22, 2007)
commented, "McLeroy's elevation to chairman comes as the board begins
a revision of science standards for public schools. That could prove
embarrassing for Texas if McLeroy pushes for standards that push
theology over science."
A document on McLeroy's personal website entitled "Historical
Reality" and dated September 8, 2003, offers a glimpse of McLeroy's
understanding of evolutionary science. Relying on discredited sources
as Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box, Jonathan Wells's Icons of
Evolution and Percival Davis and Dean Kenyon's Of Pandas and People
as well as on tendentious misreadings of legitimate science and on
long-ago-debunked creationist claims, McLeroy argued that common
descent is "only a hypothesis, and a shaky one at that." He then
urged his colleagues on the board to reject the books then under
consideration -- a plea that was ignored.
The Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) for the sciences are
scheduled to be reviewed and revised shortly, with a final vote by
the Texas board of education presently expected in November 2008.
Textbooks submitted for adoption in Texas are required to conform to
the TEKS, so although the next round of biology textbook adoption
proceedings is not expected to begin until 2009 at the earliest, it
is likely that antievolutionists will try to undermine the treatment
of evolution in the TEKS in order to provide a platform to campaign
against the treatment of evolution in the biology textbooks.

The governor of Texas has appointed an ultra conservative creationist to the
head of the Texas state school board. The fact that a devout creationist has
been appointed to this position is not only a catastrophe for the educational
system of Texas but also will more than likely have a huge negative impact on
the rest of the school systems in America. The Texas school board orders all
text books in mass for all school districts in the state which enables this
board to dictate the content of all text books used in Texas and thus in the
rest of the United States. Text book manufactures are more concerned with
profits than good science. Educators have been complaining about this problem
for years, but nobody listened. Now we have the beginings of a national
science melt down if something is not done.
---
Heres part of a letter written to Miller concerning McLeroys actions.
McLeroy is just appointed head of the Texas state school board
by the Governor.

But that still was not enough. Unwillingly to let the TEA textbook staff do
their jobs, Dr. McLeroy thought it necessary to correspond with the biology
textbook publishers themselves and act like a one-man Texas Education Agency.
He reminded publishers on Jan. 8 that there is a process by which errors that
remain in the books will be fixed before they get into the hands of children,
and that their cooperation in it is required. This sort of ex parte
communication is probably not legal, and is certainly very irregular and
unwise. The only way to explain this is to conclude that Dr. McLeroy is
bullying the publishers, an exercise of over-reaching that all
pseudoscientists engage in and serves as one of its identifiers. After all the
implied threats and coercion that textbook publishers have to endure under the
normal Texas textbook adoption process to change their books content to
satisfy the political, religious, and social desires of the State Board as a
single entity, now they are having to endure individual Board members calling
them up with the same implied threats and informing them their cooperation is
required in yet another sleazy attempt to satisfy the Discovery Institutes
wishes. No wonder our countrys textbook publishers feel they are harassed by
the Texas process. Believe me, they complain privately about this, and their
complaints are fully justified.There exists even further evidence that these
actions were part of a planned strategy to censor the evolution content of the
biology books despite their overwhelming adoption by the SBOE without changes
asked for by the Discovery Institute and other creationist organizations:
while the publicincluding scientists and science educators, and probably most
members of the State Board of Educationwere kept ignorant of the details of
the behind-the-scene maneuverings of Dr. McLeroy to intimidate publishers, the
details were known to members of other creationist organizations. Mr. Frank
Mayo, an officer of Texans for Better Science Education, was obviously aware
of the push to damage the biology books under the guise of error correction,
since he referred to this effort in his message to the Katy ISD Board as they
considered which biology textbook to adopt.
==
George Gilchrist of the University of Washington conducted a search in 6,000
journals in the life sciences for "intelligent and design."
His results: "This search of several hundred thousand scientific reports
published over several years failed to discover a single instance of
biological research using intelligent design theory to explain lifes
diversity."
==
Anti-Evolution: A Reader's Guide to Writings Before and After Darwin
(Paperback)
by Tom McIver (Author) "1 Ackerman, Paul D. It's a Young World After All:
Exciting Evidences for Recent Creation.
==
The Discovery Institute
In 1999 a memo from the organisation was leaked, the so-called 'Wedge
document', which outlined the Institute's 20-year plan for attacking evolution.
Its stated objective was to "defeat scientific materialism and its destructive
moral, cultural and political legacies and to replace materialistic
explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are
created by God".
===
http://don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/eye.html
===
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html magnetic field
===
http://don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/polystrate.html
===
http://don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/taylor.html#archy Many creationists
claims refuted

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/paluxy.htm man + dino
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/onheel.htm man + dino

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/ polonium

http://don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/carbon.html#noway C14 dating
===
Archaeopteryx "all but proved a hoax"
The accusation in question was that Archaeopteryx didn't really have feathers.
Supposedly, the feather
impressions had been forged a hundred years ago onto a Compsognathus fossil so
that museums would pay
more money.
In fact, the accusation was investigated and conclusively disproven. And for
good measure, another fossil
(with clear feather impressions) was found in 2005.
The scientific community is agreed that Archaeopteryx is a truly transitional
fossil, equally reptile
and bird.
====
Beginning of life 2,000 million years ago
In 1984, the tentative estimate was 3.5 billion years. We now have fossil
bacteria dated to 3.46billion years, and as of 1996, there was a claim that
could push that to 3.87 billion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quick frozen mammoths
The Claim
Books have been written about the thousands (or tens or hundreds of thousands)
of frozen animals that have been found in the North. Supposedly mammoth meat
was served at a scientific banquet. This is held out as evidence for some sort
of great catastrophe, which quick froze them all, with fresh buttercups still
on their lips. Some Creationists use this claim to cast doubt on
uniformitarian science.
The Facts
Less than fifty frozen animals have been found. Most were pretty decayed, and
only a few were whole. They all have different carbon dates, spread across the
last 50,000 years. These are unrelated deaths that happened to result in
burials.
More Detail
Basically, this is a story which grew in the telling. People who go back to
the original articles, written by actual discoverers, find no support for the
wild claims.
For example, the Berezovka mammoth broke bones when a cliff gave way. The
landslide buried it, and the animal suffocated, and was later covered by river
mud. When it was found, even the frozen ground around it had a putrid odor: the
discoverer said (in Russian): 'only dogs showed any appetite for [the
flesh]...the stench [of decay]...was unbearable.'
Quick freezing isn't needed to preserve vegetation. For example, unfrozen,
preserved plant materials have been found associated with the skeletons of
mastodons in bogs in Ohio, New York, and New Jersey. Notice I said "skeleton".
The meat was gone, but the anoxic (oxygen-free) conditions still preserved the
contents of the gut.
For more information:
the Mammoth FAQ
Frozen Fauna of the Mammoth Steppe: The Story of Blue Babe, R.D. Guthrie,
University of Chicago Press 1990, 323pp., ISBN 0-226-31122-8
Mammoths, Lister, A., and Bahn, P., Macmillan, New York 1994 168 pp.
On the Track of Ice Age Mammals, A.J. Sutcliffe, Harvard University Press 1985
224pp., ISBN 0-674-63777-1
Farrand, Wm. R. Science 133:729-735 (17 March 1961)
How to Deep Freeze a Mammoth, Bjorn Kurten, Columbia University Press, New
York, New York 1986
==
The Coelacanth Problem
The Coelacanth ("lobe finned") order appeared 410 million years ago, and there
have been hundreds of species in this order. However, the whole order vanished
from the fossil record about the time the Dinosaurs vanished, 65 million years
ago. Everyone thought they were history.
In 1937, a live one was caught by a fisherman. It was a different species (and
different genus and different family) from any fossil Coelacanth: it has been
named Latimeria chalumnae. In 1998, Latimeria menadoensis was found far away
in Indonesia. As the names suggest, these are two different species, but both
are in the same genus. In 2000 a third colony was found off South Africa, but
the exact species is not yet known.
So Why No Fossils for 70 Million Years?
You might well ask: is it really possible for a group of species to live for
millions of years and yet leave no fossils?
First, note that fossil hunts are done on dry land. That's partly because it's
easier, and partly because watery environments are usually undergoing
deposition, which covers everything up. On land, rocks are eroding, and
fossils get revealed.
So, where do dry-land rocks come from? Well, some were formed on land, and
some in fresh water, and some in shallow sea water. But very few were formed
in deep sea water. Plate tectonics makes it clear why this should be. The deep
ocean floor is constantly being destroyed, sucked down into the earth at
subduction zones. It is unlikely for a piece of deep ocean floor to wind up as
a dry-land rock.
Now, imagine a creature that lives only in the open ocean, and is unlikely to
venture close to shore. (Perhaps it lives in the depths.) That creature will
leave no fossils that we are likely to find. So, the answer is, yes. It is
possible to leave no fossils.
Does Latimeria live in the depths? Well, close. They've been seen in caves
about 200 meters down, and they die from decompression when brought to the
surface.
Also, if a creature lives in a small geographic area, it is possible that no
one ever looked in the right place. The first colony of Latimeria is off one
single island (Grand Comoro) in the Indian Ocean. And, the whole population
there is only a few hundred fish.
==
200 year old lava rocks from Hawaii
Taylor mentions 200 year old lava which was misdated as 22 million years old.
He then explains that this was caused by "initial argon 40 contamination
during the crystal formation".
This is incorrect. Funkhouser's article reports that the lava dated to an age
of zero. To that dating method, 200 years is the same thing as "zero".
Funkhouser did obtain a date of 22 million years, but for some olivine rocks
which were stuck in the lava like raisins.
==
Are fruit flies mutated in labs still just fruit flies?
The Problem
As one Creationist put it,
"The stubborn fruit fly has endured every genetic indignity possible, but so
far not one has ever produced anything except another fruit fly." -- Page 163
"No new species has ever been produced, while the mutants have invariably been
deformed or in some way are less than normal." -- Page 162
In The Minds Of Men, Ian Taylor
------
The Answer
Yes, they are still fruit flies. But that's reasonable. There is an obvious
thing to do if you wanted to create a non-fruit-fly, and all the researchers
have (for excellent reasons) done the exact opposite.
The point of these experiments was to learn how genetics works. So, each
experiment starts with the standard pedigreed stock of fruit flies. Those
Drosophila are guaranteed to be normal, and the same as the ones used by
everyone else. The virtue is that the researcher can look up all the things
that are known about the pedigreed stock. This makes it enormously easier to
detect any change that an experiment has caused. It's practical.
Darwin said that evolution was due to accumulated change. If scientists had
been trying to accumulate their changes, we would by now have fruit flies that
were 2500 generations away from normality. But since each experiment starts
anew, the mutants are rarely more than 5 or 10 generations away from
normality. And when an experiment is over, its mutants are usually killed.
And in fact, someone recently compared lab fruit flies to wild ones, and
discovered that the wild ones have changed.
New Species
Just because they're still fruit flies, does not mean that they are still the
same species. In fact, lots of researchers have created twopopulations of
fruit flies that each breed among themselves, but that refuse to breed with
with the other type. By definition, those two populations are different
species.
==
1. Unintelligent Design - Mark Merakh (2003): I see this as an updated version
of Richard Dawkin's The Blind Watchmaker it also debunks the biggies of
creation science.
2. Why Intelligent Design Fails - Matt Young, Taner Denis (2004): More
arguments against a created universe and the creationists big-three
3. The Case for a Creator - Lee Strobel(2004): We should always look at both
sides of the argument, this is probably the most recent book that defends
creationists, so I'm definitely going to check it out (NB. The additional
update chaper at the end of Atheist Universe debunks the premise of the book
already, but I want to have a better overwiew of the many other claims
proponents of Intelliget Design make to defend the very messed-up doctrines of
the Bible)
4. Evolution vs. Creationism - Eugenie C. Scott (2005): Again, looks at both
sides of the argument in a non-subjective way, it doesn't come to any
conclusions which side is better or more correct but definitely a good source
of understanding the debate.
5. The Evolution-Creation Struggle - Michael Ruse (2005): This author has
spend most of his life trying to debate the issue himself and comes to some
very unique conclusions!
==
The reviews of Darwin's Black Box in the scientific community were uniformly
negative, for two reasons. First, we do understand something about how these
pathways might have evolved in stepwise fashion, though we are as yet
admittedly ignorant of many details. (It is harder to reconstruct the
evolution of biochemical pathways than the evolution of organisms themselves,
because, unlike organisms, these pathways do not fossilize, and so their
evolution must be reconstructed entirely from living species.) Second, in the
scientific community a failure to understand something does not automatically
count as evidence for divine creation. Science is littered with
once-mysterious facts first imputed to God and later found out to be
explicable solely through natural processes. This, in fact, is what Darwin's
theory of natural selection did to the earlier idea that organisms were
designed by a Creator.
==
In order to tell whether something looks designed, you must first be able to
distinguish designed from undesigned. This immediately begs the question of
what is undesigned. If you believe God created everything, then nothing is
undesigned, and the claims of appearance of design fail for lack of
comparison. Alternately, you can claim that only certain selected parts of the
universe were designed by God.
===
Since the bedrock of the ID creationist movement is its rejection of
modern scientific methodology, it is not altogether surprising that
Judge Jones found that ID lacks proper scientific credentials.
Science requires testable hypotheses. Because conjectures about the
actions of "designers" or other supernatural agents are not testable
(at least, no one has yet developed a way to test such conjectures)
the methodology of science, sometimes called "methodological
naturalism," limits scientists to the search for natural explanations
of natural phenomena. Despite the historical fact that, several
centuries ago, scientists abandoned as unworkable the attempt to
explain natural phenomena by appeals to the supernatural, ID
proponents argue, like earlier creationists, that modern science's
exclusion of the supernatural as a scientific explanation is
arbitrary. In Darwin on Trial, Phillip Johnson argues that evolution
is accepted by the scientific community only because scientists have
made a dogmatic, a priori commitment to naturalism (Johnson, 1991).
After the Supreme Court declared the teaching of creationism
unconstitutional in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), Johnson decided that
the creationists had lost that case because of their unfair exclusion
from science by the scientific community's naturalistic definition of
science. Consequently, creationists must redefine science to restore
the supernatural: "Definitions of science, [Johnson] argued, could be
contrived to exclude any conclusion we dislike or to include any we
favor" (Nelson, 2002, 3). The ID movement thus chose to operate with
an unworkable, pre-modern definition of science that requires appeals
to the supernatural in order to construct an "adequate" explanation
of natural phenomena. Yet ID proponents have never provided a
plausible explanation of why untestable - hence unscientific - claims
about supernatural causation are needed, or even useful, for
understanding natural phenomena.
===
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-06-07-evolution-poll-results_n.htm
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,007 National Adults,
aged 18+, conducted June 1-3, 2007. For results based on the total
sample of National Adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the
margin of sampling error is +/-3 percentage points.

[Numbers are percentages] ]

23. Next, we'd like to ask about your views on two different
explanations for the origin and development of life on earth. Do you
think -- [ITEMS ROTATED] -- is -- [ROTATED: definitely true, probably
true, probably false, (or) definitely false]?

A. Evolution, that is, the idea that human beings developed over
millions of years from less advanced forms of life

Definitely true 18
Probably true 35
Probably false 16
Definitely false 28
No opinion 3
------------ ----
Total true 53
Total false 44

B. Creationism, that is, the idea that God created human beings
pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000
years

Definitely true 36
Probably true 27
Probably false 16
Definitely false 15
No opinion 3
------------ ----
Total true 66
Total false 31

24. How familiar would you say you are with each of the following
explanations about the origin and development of life on earth --
very familiar, somewhat familiar, not too familiar, or not at all
familiar? How about -- [ITEMS ROTATED]?

A. Evolution

Very familiar 41
Some-what familiar 41
Not too familiar 12
Not at all familiar 5
No opinion 1
------------ ----
Total familiar 82
Total not familiar 17

B. Creationism

Very familiar 50
Some-what familiar 36
Not too familiar 9
Not at all familiar 4
No opinion 1
------------ ----
Total familiar 86
Total not familiar 13

=======
Ultimately Behe's colleagues at Lehigh University are ideally positioned to
comment on his work. The Department of Biological Sciences has posted the
following statement on their website concerning Behe:

"The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the
highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This
commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the
free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific
method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the
validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis
testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others."

"The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of
evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin
and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole
dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of
'intelligent design.' While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views,
they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our
collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not
been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."

==
Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism
==
Mark 10:6, "at the beginning of creation God made them male and female.
No evolution or big bang.
===
In our view, one of the most damaging by-products of evolutionary teaching is
the allegorizing of the creation story in the Garden of Eden. If the creation
story can be allegorized (or turned into a hypothetical figurative or
fictional story), then great harm is done to the problem of sin entering, and
corrupting the creation. Consequently, it then follows, if evolution {or the
evil-delusion} is true, then the origin of sin can be eradicated, and there is
no more need for a Saviorthus, our necessity for Jesus Christ is eliminated.
So, you see, the teaching of evolution is fundamentally opposed to
Christianity and the Bible.
==
Huckabee had stated:
"I didn't get into politics because I thought government had a better answer.
I got into politics because I knew government didn't have the real answers,
that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives.'" And then
this: "I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ."

Does evolution affect the office of the President? Yes. It definitely is a
litmus test that helps define the type of person you want running the most
powerful nation on Earth as opposed to your neighborhood church. Believe
it or not, they call for different skill sets.
Mike Huckabee failed this particular test.

The United States is right there with Turkey on the list of countries with
the highest proportion of the population doubting evolution.
======
By SAM BROWNBACK
Published: May 31, 2007
In our sound-bite political culture, it is unrealistic to expect that
every complicated issue will be addressed with the nuance or subtlety
it deserves. So I suppose I should not have been surprised earlier
this month when, during the first Republican presidential debate, the
candidates on stage were asked to raise their hands if they did not
believe in evolution. As one of those who raised his hand, I think
it would be helpful to discuss the issue in a bit more detail and
with the seriousness it demands.
The premise behind the question seems to be that if one does not
unhesitatingly assert belief in evolution, then one must necessarily
believe that God created the world and everything in it in six 24-
hour days. But limiting this question to a stark choice between
evolution and creationism does a disservice to the complexity of the
interaction between science, faith and reason.
The heart of the issue is that we cannot drive a wedge between faith
and reason. I believe wholeheartedly that there cannot be any
contradiction between the two. The scientific method, based on
reason, seeks to discover truths about the nature of the created
order and how it operates, whereas faith deals with spiritual truths.
The truths of science and faith are complementary: they deal with
very different questions, but they do not contradict each other
because the spiritual order and the material order were created by
the same God.
People of faith should be rational, using the gift of reason that God
has given us. At the same time, reason itself cannot answer every
question. Faith seeks to purify reason so that we might be able to
see more clearly, not less. Faith supplements the scientific method
by providing an understanding of values, meaning and purpose. More
than that, faith not science can help us understand the breadth
of human suffering or the depth of human love. Faith and science
should go together, not be driven apart.
The question of evolution goes to the heart of this issue. If belief
in evolution means simply assenting to microevolution, small changes
over time within a species, I am happy to say, as I have in the past,
that I believe it to be true. If, on the other hand, it means
assenting to an exclusively materialistic, deterministic vision of
the world that holds no place for a guiding intelligence, then I
reject it.
There is no one single theory of evolution, as proponents of
punctuated equilibrium and classical Darwinism continue to feud
today. Many questions raised by evolutionary theory like whether
man has a unique place in the world or is merely the chance product
of random mutations go beyond empirical science and are better
addressed in the realm of philosophy or theology.
The most passionate advocates of evolutionary theory offer a vision
of man as a kind of historical accident. That being the case, many
believers myself included reject arguments for evolution that
dismiss the possibility of divine causality.
Ultimately, on the question of the origins of the universe, I am
happy to let the facts speak for themselves. There are aspects of
evolutionary biology that reveal a great deal about the nature of the
world, like the small changes that take place within a species. Yet I
believe, as do many biologists and people of faith, that the process
of creation and indeed life today is sustained by the hand of God
in a manner known fully only to him. It does not strike me as anti-
science or anti-reason to question the philosophical presuppositions
behind theories offered by scientists who, in excluding the
possibility of design or purpose, venture far beyond their realm of
empirical science.
Biologists will have their debates about mans origins, but people of
faith can also bring a great deal to the table. For this reason, I
oppose the exclusion of either faith or reason from the discussion.
An attempt by either to seek a monopoly on these questions would be
wrong-headed. As science continues to explore the details of mans
origin, faith can do its part as well. The fundamental question for
me is how these theories affect our understanding of the human person.
The unique and special place of each and every person in creation is
a fundamental truth that must be safeguarded. I am wary of any theory
that seeks to undermine mans essential dignity and unique and
intended place in the cosmos. I firmly believe that each human
person, regardless of circumstance, was willed into being and made
for a purpose.
While no stone should be left unturned in seeking to discover the
nature of mans origins, we can say with conviction that we know with
certainty at least part of the outcome. Man was not an accident and
reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order. Those
aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a
welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that
undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an
atheistic theology posing as science.
Without hesitation, I am happy to raise my hand to that.
Sam Brownback is a Republican senator from Kansas.
===
"We have succeeded for 205 years in keeping the affairs of state
separate from the uncompromising idealism of religious groups and
we mustn't stop now. To retreat from that separation would violate
the principles of conservatism and the values upon which the
framers built this democratic republic."
--Barry Goldwater, "Mr. Conservative"
==
If you have never heard about the concept of a god would you embrace it
if you heard it for the first time? This question should be obvious but
it is not obvious to the mind of a Christian, seeing their mind has
been so damaged by their beliefs they can never be trusted to say
anything rational. I read in the Los Angeles Times that
the "creationist museum" is opening today further damaging the minds of
the young and reinforcing the stupidity of adults. Just to keep their
superstition alive they have to put the age of the dinosaurs with
modern man, all within the past 6,000 years. Some of these people will
become teachers and will propagate their ignorance and superstition to
unsuspecting children; I call it intellectual child abuse.
==
"When they try to confuse [kids] about what is science and what isn't science,
scientists have an obligation to speak out," said Lawrence Krauss, an author
and a physics professor at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.
"There's no doubt these are documented lies."
==
Dean Kenyon - young earth creationist - is one of the authors of the
creationist textbook *Of Pandas and People* that the creationists on the
Dover, Pennsylvania were pretending were serious alternatives to biological
science texts and trying to get public school science students to read.
==
Evolution Opponent Is in Line for Schools Post
The National Association of State Boards of Education will elect
officers in July, and for one office, president-elect, there is only
one candidate: a member of the Kansas school board who supported its
efforts against the teaching of evolution.
Scientists who have been active in the nation's evolution debate say
they want to thwart his candidacy, but it is not clear that they can.
The candidate is Kenneth R. Willard, a Kansas Republican who voted
with the conservative majority in 2005 when the school board changed
the state's science standards to allow inclusion of intelligent
design, an ideological cousin of creationism. Voters later replaced
that majority, but Mr. Willard, an insurance executive from
Hutchinson, retained his seat. If he becomes president-elect of the
national group, he will take office in January 2009.
The group, based in Washington, is a nonprofit organization of state
school boards whose Web site (www.nasbe.org) says it "works to
strengthen state leadership in educational policymaking. "
Brenda L. Welburn, its executive director, said Mr. Willard's only
opponent in the race withdrew for personal reasons after the period
for nominations had closed. Each state has one vote in the election.
Some scientists hope that when states submit their votes, they will
write in someone else. One possible candidate is Sam Schloemer, a
retired businessman from Cincinnati who won a seat on the Ohio board
last November with the help of scientists who organized to defeat
creationist candidates.
Mr. Schloemer, a Republican, said in a telephone interview that he
had learned of Mr. Willard's unopposed candidacy a few days before.
He said he had no particular desire for the office, but added, "I
would rather serve than see someone of his persuasion represent
school boards across the country." Mr. Willard, who is in his fourth
year on the 16-member national board, said in a telephone interview
yesterday that issues like the teaching of evolution were best left
to the states.
"We don't set curriculum standards or anything like that," Mr.
Willard said of the national organization, adding that it handled
issues like advising state boards on how to deal with governance
concerns or influxes of immigrant students or ways to raise academic
achievement among members of disadvantaged groups.
He said, though, that he personally thought students should be taught
about challenges to the theory of evolution, like intelligent design.
And while he said he had not heard of a possible challenge to his
candidacy, Mr. Willard added that he was not surprised by it.
"Some people are mindless about their attacks on anyone questioning
anything Darwin might have said," Mr. Willard said.
There is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution
as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on earth.
Courts have repeatedly ruled that creationism and intelligent design
are religious doctrines, not scientific theories.
People like Steve Rissing, a professor of biology at Ohio State
University who was involved in the state election effort last fall,
say they fear that if Mr. Willard is elected, challenges to the
teaching of evolution would move to the national board. "Those of us
in the trenches say, `Oh no, not again,' " Professor Rissing said.
Patricia Princehouse, a professor of evolutionary biology at Case
Western Reserve University and a leader of the scientists' efforts,
said she hoped there would be many write-in votes. "Whether they
decide it counts or not is up to Nasbe," Professor Princehouse said,
using the acronym for the national association. "But people do not
have to endorse Willard's candidacy."
The association' s bylaws make no provision for write-ins, said Ms.
Welburn, the executive director.
John G. West, associate director of the Center for Science and
Culture at the Discovery Institute, a group based in Seattle that
espouses intelligent design, praised Mr. Willard's views on evolution
and denounced criticism of his candidacy as "the kind of thought-
policing we are getting used to."
But Kenneth R. Miller, a biology professor at Brown University who
testified last year in a lawsuit over an effort to challenge the
teaching of evolution in Dover, Pa., said he was "concerned" when he
learned a supporter of intelligent design was slated to head the
national school board group.
"We are in a nationwide struggle for the integrity of science
education," Professor Miller said, "and any situation that provides
an opportunity for the opponents of science education to advance
their agenda is a matter of concern."
==
List of modern intermediate species, which fundies claim do not exist.

bullfrog
catfish
sheepdog
horsefly
dragonfly

==
The Governor of Kentucky has
expressed support for teaching Bible stories in public schools, and
Boone County, Kentucky is giving breaks on laws and taxation, denied
others, to the vendors of religious dogma. The temporary President of
the United States has even opined that the jury is still out on evolution.
===
Edward Larson Summer for the Gods Scopes trial

The trial itself melted into insignificance when more than a year later, on
January 14, 1927, the State Supreme Court in Nashville handed down a decision
which reversed the earlier one. However, the court's decision stemmed from the
very point Darrow sought to avoid - a technicality. By Tennessee state law, the
jury, not the judge, must set the fine if it is above $50. The Butler Law,
then, stood untested. The image of Fundamentalism, however, was irrevocably
tarnished. They had proven themselves to be the "yokels, bigots, and rubes" the
press had called them.
==
Dover Trial
Witness the testimony of Board member Heather Geesey under cross examination

Q: "You supported the change?"
A: "Yes"
Q: "And the policy talks about gaps and problems with evolution?"
A: "Yes"
Q: "You don't know what those gaps and problems are, do you?
A: "No"
Q: "Is it fair to say you didn't know much about Intelligent Design
in October 2004? [When the Creationist policy was adopted]?"
A: "Yes".
Q: "And you didn't know much about the book 'of Panda and People' [The
creationist test book supported by the board and the ID movement]?
A: "No"
Q: "You never read the book?"
A: "No"
Q: "So you didn't really think much about Intelligent Design?"
A: "No"

This was entirely typical. The leader of the Board Creationists, Bill
Buckingham could not differentiate between the origin of life and the origin
of species, nor could he explain what either evolution or intelligent
design were in any terms approaching coherence. Clearly, the Board
didn't promote the Intelligent Design policy in order to improve scientific
education, as they had claimed. They wouldn't know science if it hit them
in the face. Their motivation was entirely religious.
The other setback for Intelligent Design, the one even its more sophisticated
advocated (such as biochemist Michael Behe) could not disguise, was that it
simply is not science. In order to make Intelligent Design into a science,
Behe had to redefine science in such a way as to include Astrology (p. 301).
The plaintiff's attorney, Eric Rothschild, effectively challenged all of
Behe's assertions, disclosing that his best selling ID book, "Darwin's Black
Box", received scantly any peer review, that Intelligent Design could not
reveal the mechanism through which design was supposed to work, and
that the only scientific paper published by Intelligent Design was entirely
irrelevant, making a calculation too complex by a factor vastly exceeding 10
billion

Creationist crusader Bill Buckingham's OxyContin addiction. Humes takes quite a
sympathetic tone in his dicussion of Buckingham's struggle with this habit, and
the medical problems that led to it. And it certainly seems highly plausible
that this had some effect on Buckingham's sometimes erratic behavior during the
whole controversy.
===
The Battle Over the Meaning of Everything: Evolution, Intelligent Design,
and a School Board in Dover, PA (Hardcover) by Gordy Slack
==
'He laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not move at any time'
(Psalm cv. 5)
==
Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and the Battle for America's
Soul (Hardcover) by Edward Humes
==
40 Days and 40 Nights: Darwin, Intelligent Design, God, OxyContin, and Other
Oddities on Trial in Pennsylvania (Hardcover) by Matthew Chapman
==
Dembski "As Christians we know that naturalism is false."
(Introduction to Mere Creation, p. 14)
==
Cooling of huge plutons, such as the Sierra Nevada Batholith of California
took more than 10 million years
===
Intelligent design proponants have existed for as long as religious creation
myths have existed, and there has been plenty of time to analyze these
stories, in great detail. And no, the overwhelming evidence does not point
towards a six day creation 6000 to 10000 years ago.
The modern intelligent design movement has the same flaws, but even worse
those creation myths from around the world, it has absolutely no details as to
how or when this mystical intelligent designer could or would have interfered
with the universe. At least the Abrahamic myth offers a specific instance, a
moving of a holy spirit, or breathing into Adam's nostrils, etc. Or perhaps a
giant raven laid an egg, which hatched into the universe. Or perhaps the
universe has existed forever on the backs of tortoises and elephants.
Intelligent design isn't a step up from these primitive hypotheses. It is a
step down. It provides no framework within which it may be analyzed. It isn't
even a good guess. It is the worst kind of religious fundamentalism, the kind
which demands acceptance at face value without any explanation. And yes, if
let unchecked, it will be yet another force in American schools which helps to
push us to the bottom of the intelligence totem pole.
==
The federal lawsuit Kitzmiller v Dover.
Let's hear from the judge's ruling:

"For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID
[intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult
or child" (page 24)"

"A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite
Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious
argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the
designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." (page 26)"

"The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny
of creationism" (page 31)"

"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a
mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." (page 43)

"The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts
of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the
Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the
seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not,
and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus
religious, antecedents. [...] "

Read the entire ruling here:
http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf
==
From the original draft:
"Creation means that various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of
an intelligent Creator with their distinctive features already intactfish with
fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Pandas 1987,
creationist version, FTE 4996-4997, pp. 2-14, 2-15)"

From the published version:
"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an
intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intactfish with
fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Pandas 1987,
intelligent design version, FTE 4667, p. 2-15)"
==
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html
==
Behe spent three whole days on the witness stand without describing even one
such prediction. Steve Fuller, ditto. Scott Minnich claimed that ID predicts
the existence of complex, functioning biosystems. Some functioning biosystems
are indeed complex, thus, according to Minnich, empirical evidence confirms
ID's prediction. That's just dumb. First, ID does not predict the existence of
any particular sort of system at all. Intelligent designers may produce simple
systems, complex systems, functioning systems, non-functioning systems,
biosystems, non-biological systems, or they may produce nothing at all; so
claiming that ID specifically predicts the existence of complex, functioning
biosystems is simply false. As an allegedly scientific alternative to
evolution, ID should provide meaningful, positive, testable explanations for
the origin of living things; but it does nothing of the sort.
==
Traipsing into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller v. Dover
Decision by David K. Dewolf, John G. West, Casey Luskin, and Jonathan Witt
(Paperback - Mar 10, 2006) Pro ID book
==
They also falsely claim that Michael Behe, a Lehigh University biochemist, was
a "Darwinist" (whatever that is supposed to be; Levy and Smith fail to say) and
now supports ID because of "mounting scientific evidence on the side of ID."
Unless they are prepared to accuse Behe of perjury, this is also apparently
false. Behe himself testified that his support of ID does not stem from
scientific evidence at the Dover trial. It was at this trial that Behe was also
forced to admit that ID is approximately to biology as astrology is to
astronomy.

It is false that the ID theory follows the scientific method. When the premise
is based on supernatural beginnings, there can be no experimentation. It is
simply an observation of complexity, then attributing the whole thing to a
supernatural process.

There is no "free speech" issue here: it is an issue of keeping occult
superstition out of public schools, and an issue of opposing falsehoods from
being taught as "science." The cold hard blunt truth is that "intelligent
design" is false, made up by Fundamentalist Christians to desceive their cult
members; scientists are not deceived.

Proponents of ID have a right to speak. But scientists have a right-- and a
responsibility-- to inform the public of the truth: Intelligent Design was
exposed as a hoax a long time ago.

William Dembski, in his 1999 Touchstone article "Signs of Intelligence,"
confirmed ID's religious foundation assuring readers, "Indeed, intelligent
design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of
information theory." Later (March 7, 2004) he stated that, "Ultimately I want
to see God get the credit for what he's done -- and he's not getting
it."Proponents of ID have a right to speak. But scientists have a right-- and a
responsibility-- to inform the public of the truth: Intelligent Design was
exposed as a hoax a long time ago.

IDC intellectual Jonathan Wells admitted that he was directed to study biology
by, "... Father's (self-proclaimed Messiah, Rev. Sun Moon) words, my studies,
and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying
Darwinism, ..." Then he studied biology!

The godfather of IDC, lawyer Phillip Johnson following his late life
conversion experience decided to reject science. Michael Behe has admitted
that his creationism, and promotion of IDC follows his religious beliefs.
While under oath in the Dover PA Federal Court creationism trial, Behe
admitted that unlike evolution, there is no scientific research supporting ID.
ID's religious foundation in creationism is fully exposed in Barbara Carroll
Forrest, and Paul R. Gross (2004) "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of
Intelligent Design" Oxford University Press.

The next significant error was their claim, "Intelligent Design, like any
scientific theory, uses the scientific method (observation, hypothesis,
experiment, and conclusion)."

Again Dr. William Dembski clearly states the IDC position;

"ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your (science
gh) pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct
and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures,
then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots.
(ISCID, 2002)" In the 2005 Dover Pa. "Pandas" trial Kitzmiller v. Dover)
intelligent design creationist Michael Behe was forced to admit under oath
that under any definition of science that would include IDC would also include
astrology.
==
THE LATEST ON EVOLUTION FROM THE POPE
(From the National Center for Science Education)
Pope Benedict XVI's views on evolution are back in the news, following
The publication of Schoepfung und Evolution (Sankt Ulrich Verlag,
2007), the proceedings of a seminar on creation and evolution that he
conducted at Castel Gandolfo, the pope's summer residence, with his
former doctoral students in September 2006. Reuters (April 11, 2007)
reports that in his contribution to the book, the Pope "did not
endorse creationist or 'intelligent design' views about life's
origins," adding, "In the book, Benedict defended what is known as
'theistic evolution,' the view held by Roman Catholic, Orthodox and
mainline Protestant churches that God created life through evolution
and religion and science need not clash over this."
But Reuters also reported that the Pope regards evolution as
unamenable to scientific proof; the Associated Press (April 12, 2007)
quoted him as saying, "the theory of evolution is not a complete,
scientifically proven theory," in part because of the length of time
involved: "We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory."
Asked for comment by Der Spiegel (April 12, 2007), the evolutionary
biologist Josef Reichholf replied, "So there would be no history, too,
since one can't completely reconstruct it either," and cited
archaeology as a historical discipline in which knowledge is
attainable despite gaps in the archeological record.
Speculation about a possible shift in the Catholic Church's attitude
toward evolution was provoked in 2005 with the publication in The New
York Times of Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn's op-ed "Finding Design in
Nature." By seeming to express sympathy for "intelligent design"
creationism, Schoenborn's op-ed elicited a strong reaction from a host
of scientists including Francisco Ayala, Lawrence M. Krauss, Kenneth
R. Miller, Fiorenzo Facchini, George V. Coyne (then the director of
the Vatican Observatory), and Nicola Cabibbo (the head of the
Pontifical Academy of Sciences) -- as well as from a number of
Catholic theologians such as John F. Haught.
NCSE's executive director Eugenie C. Scott commented, "The Pope
giveth And the Pope taketh away." It was gratifying, she explained,
that there were no signs of the Pope's embracing creationism in any
form, and that he expressed such a high view of science. "But it is
disquieting," she added, "that his reported comments manifest a
misunderstanding of the scientific status of evolution. No scientific
theory is 'complete' and 'scientifically proven', but scientists
accept theories when the evidence is strong enough -- and the evidence
for evolution is overwhelming."
Similarly, Scott said that the Pope's reported criticism of evolution
as not being replicable reflected a common misunderstanding of the
nature of science: "Science is not limited just to the laboratory.
Biology, like astronomy and geology, is largely a historical science,
but it is no less a science for that." (She added, mischievously,
that microbiologists like Richard Lenski would be surprised to hear
that 10,000 generations can't be hauled into the laboratory.) Scott
emphasized that her reaction was based on reports from the press, and
that she looked forward to reading the Pope's contribution to
Schoepfung und Evolution to understand his view more completely.
==
Several creationists have done genuine science in the past. Duane
Gish once coauthored a paper published in the Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences. But the work being done today in
intelligent design is not of that caliber. In 1997 George Gilchrist
reported the results of his search through five huge computerized
databases (BIOSIS, the Expanded Academic Index, the Life Sciences
Collection, Medline, and the Science Citation Index). Among hundreds
of thousands of publications, he found only thirty-seven references
to intelligent design as a biological theory, and none of them
reported scientific research based on the theory. Later searches
extending from 1997 through October 2001 produced the same result: no
scientific research into intelligent design.10
==
Creationists have problems with fossils found
sandwiched between old rock and older rock. Satan is suspected.
==
[I]n its relation to Christianity, intelligent design
should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation . . .
- William A. Dembski -
==
At the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky., I learned that Earth was created in
4004 B.C., about the same time that the Mesopotamians invented beer (Thats on
the secular timeline, I was told). Dioramas feature children frolicking among
vege-tarian dinosaurs, including a Tyrannosaurus rex and Utahraptor, whose
daggerlike teeth and claws, it was noted, were used for cracking open coconuts
before the Fall. But then the snake tempted Eve, who in turn charmed Adam into
tasting the fruit of the knowledge of good and evilafter which dinosaurs
became meat eaters, humans became sinners and Noah gathered the animals into
the Ark (also rendered in- a dioramic drama complete with screaming
left-behinders on soon-to-be swamped rocks).
==
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design (Paperback)
by Jonathan Wells (Author)
==
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/apprage.htm
old/young earth

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/bibliolatry_revisited_elders.htm
Grand Canyon
==
The Counter-Creationism Handbook (Paperback)
by Mark Isaak (Author)
==
Loess deposits (deposits of wind-blown silt) in China are 300 m thick. They
give a continuous climate record for 7.2 million years. The record is
consistent with magnetostratigraphy and habitat type inferred from fossils
===
Staff scientists are working to develop an intelligent design curriculum, and
advance copies of Explore Evolution , a biology textbook soon to be released
by the organization, were available at the convention. Program Director
Stephen Meyer told the crowd it is "premature" to teach intelligent design in
public schools. Meyer said, "We encourage people not to push this in schools
right now."
Michael Behe admits evolution by descent with variation is a powerful and
valid explanation for observable biological change, and convention moderator
Lee Strobel said of the panel of speakers, "We all admit evolution exists."
Strobel even said public schools should "teach more evolution."
Instead of attacking evolutionary theory, ID proponents claim to have
discovered new evidence. In his book, Behe, a biochemistry professor at Lehigh
University, declared modern molecular techniques had lifted the lid on
conventional biology, revealing complex chemical cascades and molecular
machines too elaborate to be explained by evolutionary theory. ID proponents
claim there is too much information in genes to have accumulated naturally,
too much biodiversity appearing too rapidly in the fossil record and molecular
devices too complex to assemble by chance. The heart of their approach is "the
design inference," an age-old philosophical notion positing that we can
perceive whether something formed by chance or by design. A watch implies a
watchmaker.
Philosopher Jay Richards told the audience there are too many universal
constants set too precisely to have aligned perfectly by chance, so there must
be a purpose to our existence. He has discovered that purpose. Earth is
positioned not only within the solar system's narrow life-friendly zone, but
also within the galaxy's astronomer-friendly zone. We are perfectly positioned
to see what is around us, so our purpose is to discover.
Such proclamations get at the core of ID proponents' motivation, which is to
preserve room in the universe for purpose and meaning. Their real opponent is
not evolution, but materialism, which is a cornerstone of not just biology,
but all science. They feel science has grabbed too much of the world and left
no place for God.
Though he readily admits ID is not ready for public science classes, Meyer
brims with confidence that he has scientists "on the defensive."
Meyer published a philosophical criticism of evolution in a small
peer-reviewed journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington ,
in August 2004. The journal is affiliated with the Smithsonian Institution,
and the managing editor has come under fire from Smithsonian biologist
Jonathan Coddington and others. Meyer's paper argued that the sudden
appearance of diverse animal phyla in Cambrian fossils represents too much new
information for evolution to explain and therefore suggests the work of a
"rational agent."

The Cambrian Explosion is not the mystery Meyer wishes it to be. Immediately
preceded geologically by early evidence of tissues, organs and multicellular
life, the Cambrian era also marks the first appearance of calcium-hardened
tissues like bones and shells. Hard-bodied creatures are far more likely to
leave fossil traces than their soft-bodied ancestors, and this combination of
increased fossilization and emerging multicellular life accounts for the
abundance of Cambrian fossils.
Because Meyer does not discuss how his "rational agent" might have acted nor
attempt to quantify how much information is too much, his argument remains
philosophical, not scientific. The relatively young branch of mathematics
called information theory could help ID proponents strengthen their case, but
their forays into math appear limited to irrelevant exaggerations of
biological probabilities and absurd claims like Strobel's "Nature can't
produce informatiBehe's notion of "irreducible complexity" could be expressed
mathematically, but he seems uninterested in doing so. When asked about this,
he said, "One problem with developing mathematical formulas is that your
audience is necessarily limited." Like Creationism, ID is an idea tailored for
a friendly crowd, not for skeptics.on."
ID proponents say evolution leaves everything to chance. They don't mention
that chance is only the raw material upon which natural selection operates.
They say evolution is purposeless, but the theory implicitly endows all life
with the purpose of reproduction. That purpose might be too sexual to sit
comfortably with Christians, but evolution can be viewed as an unbroken chain
of motherly love stretching back through human history into our mammalian,
reptilian and more primitive forebears. We are family back to the first cells,
and before that, it was momma muck that obeyed God's command to bring forth
life.
===
Oregon biology teacher fired after veering from curriculum with Bible
references, presentation
SISTERS, Ore. During his eight days as a part-time high school biology
teacher, Kris Helphinstine included Biblical references in material he
provided to students and gave a PowerPoint presentation that made links
between evolution, Nazi Germany and Planned Parenthood.
That was enough for the Sisters School Board, which fired the teacher Monday
night for deviating from the curriculum on the theory of evolution.
I think his performance was not just a little bit over the line, board member
Jeff Smith said. It was a severe contradiction of what we trust teachers to do
in our classrooms.
Helphinstine, 27, said in a phone interview with The Bulletin newspaper of
Bend that he included the supplemental material to teach students about bias
in sources, and his only agenda was to teach critical thinking.
Critical thinking is vital to scientific inquiry, said Helphinstine, who has a
master's degree in science from Oregon State. My whole purpose was to give
accurate information and to get them thinking.
Helphinstine said he did not teach the idea that God created the world. I
never taught creationism, he said. I know what it is, and I went out of my way
not to teach it.
Parent John Rahm told the newspaper that he became concerned when his freshman
daughter said she was confused by the supplemental material provided by
Helphinstine.
He took passages that had all kinds of Biblical references, Rahm said. It
prevented her from learning what she needed to learn.
Board members met with Helphinstine privately for about 90 minutes before the
meeting. The teacher did not stay for the public portion.
How many minds did he pollute? Dan Harrison, the father of a student in
Helphinstine's class, said at the meeting. It's a thinly veiled attempt to
hide his own agenda.
===
Intelligent design supporters find new, creative ways to get their message out
Thomas, a physicist and mathematician, is president of New Mexicans for
Science and Reason (www.nmsr.org). He is co-host of the group's "Science
Watch," which airs Saturdays at 2 p.m. on KABQ-AM (1350).
In this session of the New Mexico Legislature, no fewer than two bills and two
resolutions supporting "intelligent design creationism" were proposed.
Rep. W. C. "Dub" Williams, a Glencoe Republican, sponsored two measures in the
House, while the corresponding Senate measures were put forward by Sen. Steve
Komadina, a Corrales Republican.
The carefully crafted "academic freedom" measures made no specific mention of
intelligent design. But it was clearly the driving purpose behind these, which
would have permitted and encouraged teachers to present so-called weaknesses of
evolution science in biology classes.
The measures would have also have given students the "right and freedom to
reach their own conclusions about biological origins."
We don't encourage students to "reach their own conclusions" on how to add
fractions. Why should we suddenly do so with the biosciences?
Make no mistake, the only academic freedom involved in these measures is the
freedom to teach creationism in science class.
The legislation doesn't look like it's going anywhere. Both House measures had
been tabled, and the Senate measures may not even get to committee before
adjournment this week.
While supporters insisted that "this is about science, not religion," Williams
was much more honest. At a hearing Jan. 29 in the House Judiciary Committee on
the memorial, Williams declared: "What we evolved from we will never figure
out. There are many people who are absolutely convinced God did all of this,
and if you have the faith I have, God did it all."
After hearing from several scientists and teachers opposed to the bill at an
Education Committee hearing Feb. 21, Williams graciously tabled his own bill.
These unnecessary measures would have given students the power to decide how
they will be tested in the science of biology. Current state standards already
recognize the rights of students to have their own religious views.
Just because this legislation may have failed, however, we shouldn't be
complacent about intelligent design creationists.
Watch for continued calls for classroom presentation of so-called weaknesses
in evolution. In mainstream science, evolution is spectacularly successful,
and supported by literally millions of observations. The only weaknesses
brought forth are invariably warmed-over creationist pseudoscience - the
"Cambrian explosion" can't be explained; complexity can't evolve; study of
past events is mere speculation; and on and on.
Look out for complaints that simply teaching the scientific method - testing
real-world (natural) explanations - somehow denies even the possibility of a
guiding intelligence above it all. Science is not "atheism" just because it
cannot invoke supernatural causality.
Intelligent design creationism proponents demonize everyone who doesn't accept
their specific sectarian tenet - that God created unique "kinds," and would
never use evolution - as "Darwinists" and "atheists."
They have the audacity to think they know the mind of God, and that they
should keep the rest of us in line. The president of the New Mexico
Intelligent Design Network, Joe Renick, went as far as calling Judge John E.
Jones (who ruled that intelligent design is just a form of creationism in the
Dover, Penn., ruling of 2005) one of the "federal judges who drink the same
Kool-Aid as the Darwinists," invoking images of cult leader Jim Jones leading
a mass suicide in Guyana.
In public, they will claim intelligent design is not creationism, but only
"science." But on the Jan. 13, 2005, "Family News In Focus," James Dobson's
radio news program, Renick revealed his agenda: "If there's no transcendent
designer or creator, such as the God of Genesis, well then, that's going to
say a whole lot about what this life is about and what it means."
The latest intelligent design creationism effort is underway, and it involves
giving science teachers copies of infomercial videos, under the auspices of
the New Mexico Science Foundation. But the Public Education Department has
repeatedly said intelligent design has no place in New Mexico science classes.
These videos are not acceptable for class use. The material cleverly makes no
mention of creation, or God, but instead links to the National Science
Foundation and quotes Albert Einstein.
Yet, the webmaster for the foundation is Mark Burton, a high-ranking member of
the Creation Science Fellowship of New Mexico, a creationist organization
committed to biblical inerrancy, Noah's flood and a 6,000-year-old Earth.
Looking at the foundation's material, you realize that it's the same old
Cheshire cat - young Earth creationism - but all that can be seen is the grin.
Creationists aren't going away. They're just getting sneakier.
==
Evolution Less Accepted in U.S. Than Other Western Countries, Study Finds
for National Geographic News
August 10, 2006
People in the United States are much less likely to accept Darwin's idea that
humans and apes share a common ancestor than adults in other Western nations,
a number of surveys show.
A new study of those surveys suggests that the main reason for this lies in a
unique confluence of religion, politics, and the public understanding of
biological science in the United States.
Researchers compared the results of past surveys of attitudes toward evolution
taken in the U.S. since 1985 and similar surveys in Japan and 32 European
countries.
In the U.S., only 14 percent of adults thought that evolution was "definitely
true," while about a third firmly rejected the idea.
In European countries, including Denmark, Sweden, and France, more than 80
percent of adults surveyed said they accepted the concept of evolution.
The proportion of western European adults who believed the theory "absolutely
false" ranged from 7 percent in Great Britain to 15 percent in the Netherlands.
The only country included in the study where adults were more likely than
Americans to reject evolution was Turkey.
The investigation also showed that the percentage of U.S. adults who are
uncertain about evolution has risen from 7 percent to 21 percent in the past
20 years.
Researchers from the U.S. and Japan analyzed additional information from these
surveys in an attempt to identify factors that might help explain why Americans
are more skeptical about evolution.
Led by Jon D. Miller, a political scientist at Michigan State University, the
team reports its findings in tomorrow's issue of the journal Science.
American Culture and Evolution
The team ran a complex analysis of the statistics, testing for a causal link
between aspects of U.S. culture and Americans' attitudes toward evolution.
==
Our current Pope Benedict XVI as Cardinal Ratzinger said:
"The universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called
the "Big Bang" and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later
there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation
of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and
about 10 billion years later the formation of planets.

However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a
continually
increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the
development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution
were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely
human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and
creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural
evolution."
==
Edward Humes' compelling book, subtitled "Evolution, Education, Religion
and the Battle for America's Soul."

"American Fascists:
The Christian Right and the war on America"

Andrew J. Petto and Laurie R. Godfrey, editors
Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism

http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/CS/CSCorn&Medicine.html creation stories
==
In a country in which about 98 percent of the people profess a religious
faith, it is not only the religious right that clings to the biblical creation
story. About half of all Americans prefer the creationist view.
Moreover, a majority of the public, including President Bush, says evolution
and creationism (or intelligent design), should be taught in public-school
science classes.
For science educators, though, it is a battle for the minds of children who
will have to compete in a world where a sound understanding of science will be
the price of admission to a universe of new technologies.
==
AUSTIN - The second most powerful member of the Texas House has
circulated a Georgia lawmaker's call for a broad assault on teaching
of evolution.
House Appropriations Committee Chairman Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, used
House operations Tuesday to deliver a memo from Georgia state Rep.
Ben Bridges.
The memo assails what it calls "the evolution monopoly in the schools."
Mr. Bridges' memo claims that teaching evolution amounts to
indoctrinating students in an ancient Jewish sect's beliefs.
"Indisputable evidence - long hidden but now available to everyone -
demonstrates conclusively that so-called 'secular evolution science'
is the Big Bang, 15-billion-year, alternate 'creation scenario' of
the Pharisee Religion," writes Mr. Bridges, a Republican from
Cleveland, Ga. He has argued against teaching of evolution in Georgia
schools for several years.
He then refers to a Web site, www.fixedearth. com, that contains a
model bill for state Legislatures to pass to attack instruction on
evolution as an unconstitutional establishment of religion.
Mr. Bridges also supplies a link to a document that describes
scientists Carl Sagan and Albert Einstein as "Kabbalists" and laments
"Hollywood's unrelenting role in flooding the movie theaters with
explicit or implicit endorsement of evolutionism. "
Mr. Chisum said he knows Mr. Bridges from their joint service on a
committee of the National Conference of State Legislatures.
"That is a courtesy to a member of the Georgia legislature, is all
that is," said Mr. Chisum, a social conservative who opposes abortion
rights and wants the state to prefer heterosexuals over gays and
lesbians in recruiting foster parents. He authored the 2005
constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
Mr. Chisum was asked if Mr. Bridges' memo reflects his own views.
"No, absolutely, although I'm a Christian, and I believe in
creation," he said. Creation science is the idea that the Earth was
created in six days some 6,000 years ago.
"You ought to teach creation as well as the fact of evolution," Mr.
Chisum said, though he said "all of those kinds of sciences have
holes in them. ... But I'm not about teaching religion in schools."
==
The Battle for Our Children's Minds and Souls (Paperback)
by Sandy Baird (Author)
==
Memo: Stop teaching evolution
Georgia lawmaker's plea comes to Texas through No. 2 in House
AUSTIN The second most powerful member of the Texas House has circulated a
Georgia lawmaker's call for a broad assault on teaching of evolution.
House Appropriations Committee Chairman Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, used House
operations Tuesday to deliver a memo from Georgia state Rep. Ben Bridges.
The memo assails what it calls "the evolution monopoly in the schools."
Mr. Bridges' memo claims that teaching evolution amounts to indoctrinating
students in an ancient Jewish sect's beliefs.
"Indisputable evidence long hidden but now available to everyone
demonstrates conclusively that so-called 'secular evolution science' is the
Big Bang, 15-billion-year, alternate 'creation scenario' of the Pharisee
Religion," writes Mr. Bridges, a Republican from Cleveland, Ga. He has argued
against teaching of evolution in Georgia schools for several years.
He then refers to a Web site, www.fixedearth.com, that contains a model bill
for state Legislatures to pass to attack instruction on evolution as an
unconstitutional establishment of religion.
Mr. Bridges also supplies a link to a document that describes scientists Carl
Sagan and Albert Einstein as "Kabbalists" and laments "Hollywood's unrelenting
role in flooding the movie theaters with explicit or implicit endorsement of
evolutionism."
Mr. Chisum said he knows Mr. Bridges from their joint service on a committee
of the National Conference of State Legislatures.
"That is a courtesy to a member of the Georgia legislature, is all that is,"
said Mr. Chisum, a social conservative who opposes abortion rights and wants
the state to prefer heterosexuals over gays and lesbians in recruiting foster
parents. He authored the 2005 constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
Mr. Chisum was asked if Mr. Bridges' memo reflects his own views.
"No, absolutely, although I'm a Christian, and I believe in creation," he
said. Creation science is the idea that the Earth was created in six days some
6,000 years ago.
"You ought to teach creation as well as the fact of evolution," Mr. Chisum
said, though he said "all of those kinds of sciences have holes in them. ...
But I'm not about teaching religion in schools."
==
Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and the
Battle for America's Soul by Edward Humes (Hardcover
- Jan 30, 2007)
==
a book review by Tim Callahan

When I said I thought it would be kind of good
to learn more about evolution, some other kids
started calling me Monkey Girl. Cause they said
God made them, but that I mustve come from chimps.

The quote above is from the 14-year-old daughter
of Tammy Kitzmiller, one of the chief plaintiffs
in Kitzmiller vs. Dover, the court case that
decisively stopped creationism from being taught
as science in public schools in Pennsylvania -
and, hopefully, the nation. It is particularly
apt as the source of the title of this
exceptional book, since some of the predominant
character traits of fundamentalist creationists
are a blatant and pervasive bullying nastiness,
contempt for opposing views and those who
express them, and general meanness of spirit.
Perhaps we could pardon the ill-bred behavior of
those claiming to be creatures of God in the
quote above, since it is a trait not uncommon in
teenagers. However, as Edward Humes reveals so
powerfully in Monkey Girl, contemptuous
bullying, name-calling, and character
assassination were also the common tactics and
behavior of the adult advocates of creationism
in Dover, as well as those from around the
nation who supported their ill-conceived assault on science.

The attack on evolution was headed by two board
members - Alan Bonsell and Bill Buckingham -
both of whom wanted creationism taught in the
districts schools. Humes reveals that
Buckingham is a retired crusading police officer
who converted from Catholicism to evangelical
Christianity at a time of personal crisis. He
also attributes much of Buckinghams bullying
behavior on the board to mood swings he suffered
as a result of addiction to the pain-killer
OxyContin. At one point Buckingham stated:
Separation of Church and State is a myth. There
is no separation. And: This country wasnt
founded on Muslim beliefs or evolution. This
country was founded on Christianity, and our
students should be taught as such. As the board
was beginning to formulate their creationist
policy, Alan Bonsell told Bryan Rehm, a young
science teacher at Dover High School, that the
earth was less than 10,000 years old and that,
man didnt evolve from monkeys.

Further, Buckingham wanted the school district
to buy 220 copies of the ID biology book Of
Pandas and People. When Superintendent Richard
Nilsen balked at purchasing the book, Buckingham
revealed that he controlled enough board votes
to block approval of the approved biology text
and would not release them unless the board
agreed to purchase Of Pandas and People. He told
teachers and opposing board members, If we
dont get our book, you dont get yours.

The boards tactics became increasingly
dictatorial from that point on. The new science
curriculum was arbitrarily determined by the
board with no input from the science faculty.
When the possibility was raised at a public
meeting that the science teachers might ask for
legal representation from the districts regular
solicitor, the firm of Stock and Leader, Heather
Geesay, another of the creationists on the
board, said, If they requested Stock and
Leader, they should be fired. They agreed to the
book and changes in curriculum. This left
teachers in a state of shock that a board member
would dare suggest that teachers could be fired
for seeking legal counsel. In addition, as
Bertha Spahr, veteran biology teacher, reminded
the board, Geesay was absolutely wrong: The
teachers hadnt had any input on the curriculum
and had agreed to nothing. In the wake of the
rancorous meeting, Casey Brown and her husband
Jeff resigned from the board along with Noel
Wenrich. The three were the only dissenters
opposing the creationist majority. The board
then appointed four new creationist members to
fill the vacancies. Any applicant who had
experience in education or did not voice support
for ID was summarily rejected by the Board. When
science teacher Brian Rehm applied, Buckingham
insultingly asked him in public if he had ever
been accused of child abuse or molestation. With
a complete slate of creationists, the board now
had no need either to compromise or, it would
seem, to even treat their opponents with a modicum of civility.

The political climate at the outset of Dover did
not favor the furtherance of teaching evolution.
In the wake of Bushs reelection at the end of
2004, a school board in Grantsburg, Wisconsin
imposed a policy to criticize evolution. South
Carolina, Tennessee, Michigan, Oklahoma, and
Texas introduced similar, statewide,
legislation. In California, a coalition of
Christian schools sued the University of
California for violating the Constitutional
rights of students by refusing to give credit
for creationist biology classes. Florida
introduced legislation making it possible for
students to sue professors for offending their
religious beliefs. In Missouri, conservative
legislator Cynthia Davis introduced legislation
requiring biology textbooks used in the state to
include a chapter on alternatives to evolution.

Against this political background, the
plaintiffs in Dover went forward with their case
in the fall of 2005. They included Brian and
Christy Rehm, both teachers; Deborah Fenimore
and Joel Leib, who had a son in middle school;
Cynthia Sneath, parent; Steven Stough,
middle-school teacher whose daughter was in
eighth grade, Julie Smith, parent; Aralene
Barrie Callahan, former school board member,
along with her husband Frederick, Beth Eveland,
parent; and Tammy Kitzmiller, whose daughter had
been taunted with the epithet Monkey Girl.

In response to the lawsuit, the Dover board
sought legal counsel from the Thomas More Law
Center, whose mission statement reads:

Our ministry was inspired by the recognition
that the issues of the cultural war being waged
across America, issues such as abortion,
pornography, school prayer, and the removal of
the Ten Commandments from municipal and school
buildings, are not being decided by elected
legislatures, but by the courts. These court
decisions, largely insulated from the democratic
process, have been inordinately influenced by
legal advocacy groups such as the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU), which seek to
systematically subvert the religious and moral foundations of our nation.

The Center is largely supported by Thomas
Monaghan, the Domino Pizza magnate. Its lawyers
helped draft legislation banning partial birth
abortion in Michigan and all abortion in South
Dakota, and advised Jeb Bush how to intervene in
the Terri Schaivo case. It has also sued
cash-strapped small cities for refusing to erect
nativity scenes, and a Michigan school district
for failing to allow an anti-homosexual speaker
during diversity week. The Center also
defended an anti-abortion web site that had
posted names and addresses of doctors who
performed abortions. Richard Thompson, chief
legal counsel from the Thomas More Law Center
decided on a strategy to make Bill Buckingham
the fall guy, a loose cannon pushing an agenda
not necessarily supported by the entire board.
That Thompson was willing to sacrifice one of
the board members was a forecast of impending
disunity among the creationists. The Discovery
Institute was so unenthusiastic about fighting
the suit that Thompson said of them, As soon as
theres a conflict, they will back away.
Indeed, the day the lawsuit was filed a press
release from Discovery Institute appeared on
their web site criticizing the Dover policy for
its incoherence and dubious constitutionality.

In Dover itself public support for the board
began to wane following the filing of the suit.
Noel Wenrich, who had left the board along with
the Browns, quipped that an overwhelming
percentage of residents liked the ID policy, as
long as it cost them nothing. But not if taxes go up. Then its 30 percent.

The defendants themselves also appeared to be
abandoning their former bullying, no-compromise
support for putting God into the science
curriculum: When deposed prior to the trial,
Buckingham, Bonsell, and Harkins denied ever
mentioning creationism at any meeting, which
contradicted witnesses and press reports. Board
members also insisted they didnt see ID as religion.

Further, the ID camp began to unravel. After the
Discovery Institute pulled its support, chief ID
defendant William Dembski refused to testify, as
did his ID colleagues Stephen Meyer and John
Angus Campbell, all of whom demanded to have
their own personal attorneys to look after their
interests in the trial. The Thomas More Law
Center refused. As a result of the impasse, all
three were out as expert witnesses for the
defense. Eventually, Meyer and Campbell were
reconciled and agreed to testify without having
their own lawyers; but Dembski remained
intractable and had to threaten to sue the
Thomas More Center to be paid for more than 100
hours he had already spent on the case. At $200
an hour, this meant he was eventually paid more
than $20,000 for not testifying.

From this point on the case went steadily
downhill for the defense. Jon Buell, publisher
of Pandas, tried to intervene in the case on
the side of the defense. When cross-examined by
plaintiffs attorney Eric Rothschild, Buell
stated that he wanted to make sure that Pandas
wasnt represented as a creationist text.
Rothschild confounded him by producing a letter
Buell had written that stated: Our commitment
is to see the monopoly of naturalistic
curriculum in the schools broken. Presently
school curriculum reflects deep hostility to
traditional Christian views and values, and
indoctrinates students to this mind-set through
subtle, but persuasive arguments. The letter
also said how important it was to stop schools
from denying the notion that man was created in
Gods image. Rothschild asked Buell how he
could write such a letter in regards to the
book and not have any idea that Pandas would be
viewed as a creationist text. Buell didnt
answer, and the judge rejected his intervention.

Following that, the presentation of witnesses
for the plaintiffs proved devastating and was
followed by even more ruinous cross-examination
of the defense witnesses, both the ID experts
and the Dover school board members. Ken Miller,
biologist and coauthor of the standard biology
text known aas the Dragonfly Book, pointed out
that exclusion of the supernatural from science
was unavoidable and correct. Miller also pointed
out that pseudogenes - random bits of DNA that
dont code for viable protein amino acid
sequences and act merely as genetic place
holders - are an effective proof of shared
ancestry. Since pseudogenes are not subject to
natural selection, they dont change greatly.
Hence, humans and chimpanzees share common
pseudogenes. This is a test of evolution. Were
chimps and humans independently designed, they
would not likely share the same pseudogenes (or
even have pseudogenes, for that matter); and if
humans and chimps did not share the same
pseudogenes, then evolution would be falsified.

Perhaps most harmful to the ID case was the
testimony of Barbara Forrest, a professor from
Louisiana who had been attacked in very personal
and insulting terms by the Discovery Institute,
and whom the Thomas More Law Center had fought
to keep off the witness list. Forrest
demonstrated convincingly that Of Pandas and
People was originally a creationist text. In the
1986 draft Pandas said that creation means that
life forms appear abruptly through the agency of
an intelligent creator. In the 1993 draft, the
words creation and creator were replaced
respectively by intelligent design and
designer. Forrest also dredged up quotes by
Discovery Institute leading lights Phillip
Johnson and William Dembski, illuminating the
wedge strategy and showing the aim of
Discovery was to teach creationism as a tool for
spreading the Christian faith. Dembski, for
example, was quoted as saying: Intelligent
Design should be viewed as a ground clearing
operation that gets rid of intellectual rubbish
that for generations has kept Christianity from
receiving serious consideration.

The cross examination of Michael Behe proved to
be devastating to the scientific credibility of
Intelligent Design. For example, Behe had said
that a population of one billion bacteria would
take 100 million generations to produce a novel
protein feature through Darwinian evolution. At
first, this seems so astronomical as to be an
insurmountable barrier. However, Rothschild got
Behe to admit that growing 10,000 generations of
bacteria in a lab would take two years.
Therefore, 100 million generations would take
about 20,000 years, an eyeblink in geological
time. Finally, Behe was forced to concede that
there are about 10 quadrillion bacteria in one
ton of soil - about 10 million times as many
bacteria as Behe said would require 100 million
generations to produce a novel protein.

Behe had also claimed that his theory of
irreducible complexity was testable in a
laboratory. Simply take a species of bacteria
lacking a flagellum, place it in an environment
that would favor mobile organisms, grow it for
10,000 generations - again, a mere two years -
and see if a flagellum began to evolve. However,
Behe had never done this. Rothschild asked him
why he hadnt performed this make or break
experiment, one that could falsify either
evolution or ID. Behe responded: It would not be fruitful.

So devastating was the trial to the defendants
cause that four days after it ended, before
Judge Jones had even handed down his verdict,
the voters in Dover went to the polls and voted
the entire board out of office. With predictable
petulance, Pat Robertson said on the 700 Club in
response: Id like to say to the good citizens
of Dover, if there is a disaster in your area,
dont turn to God. You just rejected him from
your city, and dont wonder why he hasnt helped you when problems begin.

On December 20, 2005 Judge John E. Jones III
rendered his verdict in Kitzmiller vs. Dover. He
found that the boards ID policy was
unconstitutional, that the board had sought to
inject religion into the classroom, while
undermining the teaching of science, and that
intelligent design was a religious proposition,
not science. He further characterized the
Boards policy as breathtaking inanity. For
carrying out his duty of enforcing the law of
the land, Judge Jones was subsequently vilified
by the Discovery Institute, conservative
commentator Bill OReilly, and Ann Coulter, the
latter of whom wrote: They didnt win on
science, persuasion, or the evidence. They won
the way liberals always win: by finding a court
to hand them everything on a silver platter.

Before the trial, Judge Jones, a Bush-appointed
moderate Republican who once led an unsuccessful
attempt to privatize Pennsylvania s state-owned
liquor stores, was characterized by the
Discovery Institute as one of their own. On
William Dembskis web site, after listing Jones
conservative credentials, a pretrial posting
confidently stated: Unless Judge Jones wants to
cut his career off at the knees he isnt going
to rule against the wishes of his political
allies. Of course, the ACLU will appeal. This
wont be over until it gets to the Supreme
Court. But now we own that too. It would appear
that, in direct contradiction to what Coulter
said of the trial, it was the religious right
that expected a friendly court to hand them
victory on a silver platter. Once Jones ruling
went against them, Discovery Institute labeled
him a typically liberal activist judge.

While the trial in Dover will not bring about
the demise of either creationism or ID, it may
have set enough of a precedent to keep ID out of
the public schools, at least for awhile. Monkey
Girl is a fascinatingly detailed record of the
creationist war on science, one that links
national movements to their impacts on the lives
of individuals and the education of our children.

==
A look at how Kansas' science standards would change

A look at some of the changes proposed for Kansas' science standards.
INTRODUCTION
_ Existing Standards: "Evolution is accepted by many scientists but questioned
by some. The board has heard credible scientific testimony that indeed there
are significant debates about the evidence of key aspects of chemical and
biological evolutionary theory. ... We also emphasize that these science
curriculum standards do not include intelligent design ..."
_ Proposed Change: This language would be deleted.
_ Reasoning: The statements do not reflect mainstream science. The "credible
evidence" was testimony from the leaders of the intelligent design movement,
viewed as flawed by the scientists and educators proposing changes. They view
the last statement as false, arguing that language in the text of the existing
standards does in fact promote intelligent design, if not explicitly.
SCIENCE DEFINED
_ Existing: "Science is the systematic method of continuing investigation that
uses observations, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical
argument and theory building to lead to a more adequate explanation of natural
phenomena."
_ Proposed: "Science is a human activity of systematically seeking natural
explanations for what we observe in the world around us."
_ Reasoning: The existing definition does not specifically limit science to
the search for natural explanations - potentially allowing for supernatural
explanations that can't be tested, according to those seeking changes.
ORIGIN OF SPECIES
Standard 3, Benchmark 2, life science for grades 8-12, the "additional
specificity" meant to flesh out a requirement that a student understands
evolution.
_ Existing: "Whether microevolution (change within a species) can be
extrapolated to explain macroevolutionary changes (such as new complex organs
or body plans and new biochemical systems which appear irreducibly complex) is
controversial. These kinds of macroevolutionary changes generally are not based
on direct observations and often reflect historical narratives based on
inferences from indirect or circumstantial evidence."
_ Proposed: The language would be deleted.
_ Reasoning: The statements don't reflect mainstream science. Also, the idea
that some systems are irreducibly complex is a key intelligent design argument.
ORIGIN OF LIFE
Standard 3, Benchmark 2, grades 8-12, the requirement that a student be able
to explain both theories on the origin of life and criticisms of them.
_ Existing: "Some of the scientific criticisms including: a. the lack of
empirical evidence for a 'primordial soup' or chemically hospitable pre-biotic
atmosphere. b. the lack of adequate natural explanations for the genetic code,
the sequences of genetic information necessary to specify life, the
biochemical machinery needed to translate genetic information into functional
biosystems and the formation of proto-cells. c. the sudden rather than gradual
emergence of organisms near the time the Earth first became habitable."
_ Proposed: This language would be deleted.
_ Reasoning: Many scientists view such language as a restatement of
long-standing creationist arguments against evolution and contend they
misstate the questions at the heart of the debate over the origins of life.
HISTORY OF SCIENCE
Standard 7, Benchmark 3, grades 8-12, the additional specificity meant to
flesh out a requirement that a student understand the history of science.
_ Existing: "Modern science has been a successful enterprise that contributes
to dramatic improvements in the human condition. Science has led to
significant improvements in physical health and economic growth; however,
modern science can sometimes be abused by scientists and policy makers,
leading to significant negative consequences (e.g., the eugenics movements in
America and Germany; the Tuskegee syphilis experiments, and the scientific
justifications of eugenics and racism."
_ Proposed: The second, long sentence would be deleted.
_ Reasoning: Those proposing the deletion argue that the second sentence
singles out evolution because equally valid observations about how other
scientific theories have been misused aren't included.
Source: State Department of Education, committee proposing changes.
==
Although President Bush did not mention school vouchers in his State of the
Union speech, the very next day his administration announced that it would
push Congress to provide $4,000 per student vouchers for kids in faith-based
schools. Bush is oblivious to the massive opposition registered in polls and
state referenda over the past 40 years.
==
Why would Creationists bother using scientific data? They
aren't putting forth a scientific theory.
==
Creationism (aka creation science or
intelligent design) is a pseudoscience not because it has little to
no evidence, but because nothing in its adheres to the scientific
method. It does not begin with general observations (facts), followed
by hypotheses, testing, and theories. Instead, it begins with a
document (a part of the Old Testament), and then claims that the
document must be taken literally (instead of symbolically) as a
representation of natural history, even though there is no logical
reason to take it any more literally than the creation story of any
other culture. Yet the document doesn't actually *explain* anything.
It offers no process, hypothesis, theory, or model that can be tested,
nothing more than God did it.
==
http://www.iscid.org/pcid.php complexity and design
==
Let's examine this theory. The bible of ID, "Of Pandas and People" defines
ID thusly:
"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an
intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact, fish with
fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, etc."
===
"Aspects" of the evolutionary jigsaw puzzle are questioned all of the time.
That's how science works, that's how science arrives at the truth. It's a
complicated puzzle, many pieces, and it's not unusual for someone to put one
in the wrong place or wrongside-'round or even come up with a piece from some
other puzzle. Regardless, there are now SO many properly-fitted pieces that
the big picture is plain to see. The occasional error isn't going to turn our
picture-puzzle of Elvis into a picture of the great pyramid or Dick Cheney.
Behe admitted that ID was equivalent to the science of astrology. These
guys knew that ID had had its day in the sun, but that was during the
dark ages. They wanted everyone to go back to a time when no one knew
any better.
==
Evolution is the canary in the coal mine of enlightenment,
of science, of reality itself. When it finds it hard to
breathe, that is a clear sign that the atmosphere has
become toxic. Again, Chris Hedges, from his new book, 'American Fascists':
'The goal of creationism is not to offer an alternative.
Its goal is the destruction of the core values of the open
society--the ability to think for oneself, to draw independent
conclusions, to express dissent when judgment and common
sense tell you something is wrong, to be self-critical,
to challenge authority, to advocate for change and to
accept that there are other views, different ways of being,
that are morally and socially acceptable.
==
The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design
Ronald L. Numbers
==
Regarding theists... I put it this way: "I respect your RIGHT to be
an idiot. That doesn't mean I have to respect you, your choice to be
an idiot, or the idiocy that goes with it."
===
How can we determine scientifically whether something is designed or
not? If ID is an alternative to current thinking in biology, what
exactly is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design? What
predictions does the theory make, and how can they be tested? Is the
theory of ID able to be confirmed or falsified using the scientific
method? If so, how? If you don't have an alternative theory (or, for
some strange reason, feel you don't need one), are your objections to
evolution based purely on religious grounds?
Is the designer your god? If so, what evidence do you have to
support that claim... if not, then how does ID support fundamentalist
Creationism in any way at all? If, on the other hand, the identity of
the designer is irrelevant, then logically, so is the purpose of the
design. But, surely if you can tell something is designed you
infer it has some relevant purpose. How do Creationists/IDists resolve
this paradox?
==
Random collisions of atoms produce exquisite order quite naturally
all the time. Crystals form spontaneously, in perfect accordance with the
laws of thermodynamics, from a collection of randomly moving atoms. If your
god has no need to magically intervene in the production of a perfect
quartz crystal, what makes you think he had any need to intervene in
the crystallisation of the precursors of RNA/DNA?
==
You can trace anatomy in the fossil record, and see how anatomic structures
evolve. Since biochemistry doesn't fossilize, Behe's argument from ignorance
is safe on that front.
==
Pensacola evangelist Kent Hovind was sentenced Friday afternoon to 10 years
in prison on charges of tax fraud.
After a lengthy sentencing hearing that last 5 1/2 hours, U.S. District Judge
Casey Rodgers ordered Hovind also:

-- Pay $640,000 in restitution to the Internal Revenue Service.

-- Pay the prosecution's court costs of $7,078.

-- Serve three years parole once he is released from prison.

Hovind's wife, Jo Hovind, also was scheduled to be sentenced. Rodgers
postponed her sentencing until March 1 to allow her defense attorney an
opportunity to argue possible discrepancies in sentencing guidelines.
===
Under the Supreme Court's analysis of the Louisiana Creationism Act in
Edwards, the Dover policy would also have been struck down based upon the
religious motives of the board members in implementing the policy. The Edwards
court, applying the Lemon test, stated: "If the law was enacted for the purpose
of endorsing religion, 'no consideration of the second or third criteria [of
Lemon] is necessary.'" The Edwards court halted its analysis after concluding
that the purpose of the curriculum change was to endorse religion. A review of
the Dover board members' interest in injecting religious views into the school
system and of the significant role that religion played in the adoption of a
new biology textbook suggests that the analysis could have ended and the
policy could have been invalidated at this point.
But this seriously misrepresents the text of the Edwards ruling (see ruling
here). It simply is not true that the court stopped with the purpose analysis;
the court also declared that creationism was an inherently religious idea and
that the legislature was violating the establishment clause by endorsing that
religious idea. And this is not stated in dicta, it is stated in the court's
holding itself. Here is that holding:
1. The Act is facially invalid as violative of the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment, because it lacks a clear secular purpose. Pp. 585-594.
(a) The Act does not further its stated secular purpose of "protecting
academic freedom." It does not enhance the freedom of teachers to teach what
they choose and fails to further the goal of "teaching all of the evidence."
Forbidding the teaching of evolution when creation science is not also taught
undermines the provision of a comprehensive scientific education. Moreover,
requiring the teaching of creation science with evolution does not give
schoolteachers a flexibility that they did not already possess to supplant the
present science curriculum with the presentation of theories, besides
evolution, about the origin of life. Furthermore, the contention that the Act
furthers a "basic concept of fairness" by requiring the teaching of all of the
evidence on the subject is without merit. Indeed, the Act evinces a
discriminatory preference for the teaching of creation science and against the
teaching of evolution by requiring that curriculum guides be developed and
resource services supplied for teaching creationism but not for teaching
evolution, by limiting membership on the resource services panel to "creation
scientists," and by forbidding school boards to discriminate against anyone
who "chooses to be a creation-scientist" or to teach creation science, while
failing to protect those who choose to teach other theories or who refuse to
teach creation science. A law intended to maximize the comprehensiveness and
effectiveness of science instruction would encourage the teaching of all
scientific theories about human origins. Instead, this Act has the distinctly
different purpose of discrediting evolution by counterbalancing its teaching
at every turn with the teaching of creationism. Pp. 586-589.
(b) The Act impermissibly endorses religion by advancing the religious belief
that a supernatural being created humankind. The legislative history
demonstrates that the term "creation science," as contemplated by the state
legislature, embraces this religious teaching. The Act's primary purpose was
to change the public school science curriculum to provide persuasive advantage
to a particular religious doctrine that rejects the factual basis of evolution
in its entirety. Thus, the Act is designed either to promote the theory of
creation science that embodies a particular religious tenet or to prohibit the
teaching of a scientific theory disfavored by certain religious sects. In
either case, the Act violates the First Amendment. Pp. 589-594. 2. The
District Court did not err in granting summary judgment upon a finding that
appellants had failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact. Appellants
relied on the "uncontroverted" affidavits of scientists, theologians, and an
education administrator defining creation science as "origin through abrupt
appearance in complex form" and alleging that such a viewpoint constitutes a
true scientific theory. The District Court, in its discretion, properly
concluded that the postenactment testimony of these experts concerning the
possible technical meanings of the Act's terms would not illuminate the
contemporaneous purpose of the state legislature when it passed the Act. None
of the persons making the affidavits produced by appellants participated in or
contributed to the enactment of the law. Pp. 594-596.
There is a historic and contemporaneous link between the teachings of certain
religious denominations and the teaching of evolution (10). It was this link
that concerned the Court in Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968), which
also involved a facial challenge to a statute regulating the teaching of
evolution. In that case, the Court reviewed an Arkansas statute that made it
unlawful for an instructor to teach evolution or to use a textbook that
referred to this scientific theory. Although the Arkansas antievolution law
did not explicitly state its predominate religious purpose, the Court could
not ignore that "the statute was a product of the upsurge of 'fundamentalist'
religious fervor" that has long viewed this particular scientific theory as
contradicting the literal interpretation of the Bible. Id., at 98, 106-107
(11). After reviewing the history of antievolution statutes, the Court
determined that "there can be no doubt that the motivation for the [Arkansas]
law was the same [as other anti-evolution statutes]: to suppress the teaching
of a theory which, it was thought, 'denied' the divine creation of man." Id.,
at 109. The Court found that there can be no legitimate state interest in
protecting particular religions from scientific views "distasteful to them,"
id., at 107 (citation omitted), and concluded "that the First Amendment does
not permit the State to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to
the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma," id., at 106.
==
The Lemon test provides that a governmentsponsored message violates the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment if: 1) it does not have a secular
purpose, and 2) its principal or primary effect advances or inhibits religion.
There is a third prong as well, requiring that the policy not create
"excessive entanglement" between church and state, but that prong is
irrelevant to this case (and to most cases, frankly). Under the endorsement
test, the court must determine whether an "objective observer" with knowledge
of "the policys language, origins, legislative history, as well as the history
of the community and the broader social and historical context in which the
policy arose" would perceive the policy as endorsing a particular religious
viewpoint.
==
These same historic and contemporaneous antagonisms between the teachings of
certain religious denominations and the teaching of evolution are present in
this case. The preeminent purpose of the Louisiana Legislature was clearly to
advance the religious viewpoint that a supernatural being created humankind
(12). The term "creation science" was defined as embracing this particular
religious doctrine by those responsible for the passage of the Creationism
Act. Senator Keith's leading expert on creation science, Edward Boudreaux,
testified at the legislative hearings that the theory of creation science
included belief in the existence of a supernatural creator. See 1 App. E-421
== E-422 (noting that "creation scientists" point to high probability that
life was "created by an intelligent mind") (13). Senator Keith also cited
testimony from other experts to support the creation-science view that "a
creator [was] responsible for the universe and everything in it." (14) 2 App.
E-497. The legislative history therefore reveals that the term "creation
science," as contemplated by the legislature that adopted this Act, embodies
the religious belief that a supernatural creator was responsible for the
creation of humankind.
==
US court won't hear evolution case
Washington - The Supreme Court declined on Monday to be drawn into a debate
over the teaching of evolution in US public schools.
The refusal is a victory for schools that require teachers to instruct on the
subject even if the teacher disagrees with the scientific theory.
It's a loss for a Christian biology teacher in Minnesota who was reassigned
amid questions about his views on evolution. Justices declined without comment
to review Rodney LeVake's case.
"This case presents the court with an opportunity to reaffirm that public high
school teachers are not First Amendment orphans," LeVake's attorney, Wayne
Holstad, wrote in court filings.
LeVake briefly instructed his Minnesota high school students on the subject,
but told a colleague that he had scientific doubts about Charles Darwin's view
of species' gradual change. Evolution describes development of life on Earth
from single-celled organisms over about 3,5 billion years.
When confronted by school leaders in 1998, he proposed offering students "an
honest look at the difficulties and inconsistencies of the theory without
turning my class into a religious one."
LeVake, who is a Christian, believes that God created the world in six days,
known as creationism. He was reassigned to a ninth grade teaching job.
His case presented the Supreme Court an opportunity to revisit the debate over
public school instruction on the origin of man. In 1987, justices struck down a
Louisiana law that prohibited the teaching of evolution without equal time for
creationism.
==
http://www.creationministries.org/ *
==
"The International Society for Krishna Consciousness has published articles
on its Web site in favor of hoax accusations, in part because it conflicts
with their belief that the Moon is farther away from the Earth than the Sun
is"
==
http://www.nps.gov/grca/naturescience/naturalfeaturesandecosystems.htm
"Geologic formations such as gneiss and schist found at the bottom
of the Canyon date back 1,800 million years."
http://www.nps.gov/grca/naturescience/index.htm
"Drainage systems have cut deeply through the rock, forming
numerous steep-walled canyons....It is considered one of the finest
examples of arid-land erosion in the world."
===
Here is what the fossil record should look like if the
accounts in Genesis are true.

1. In the very lowest strata we should see no fossils at
all. This is because, according to the Bible, all life
originally existed in the Garden of Eden and nothing
died there.

2. In the next levels of strata, we should see a fairly
constant rate of fossils or a gradually growing rate
of fossils. This would reflect the time after the Fall
as life progressed all over the Earth. These strata
should have fossils of all types of organisms, both
bacteria and larger more complex organisms because
all of them coexisted. We should see more mobile
species such as horses at the bottom of the fossil
record throughout most of the world because those
species would be able to migrate to places far
away from the Garden of Eden more quickly than
less mobile species. In fact we should be able to
use this layer of strata to help discover the location
of the Garden of Eden. The closer that any particular
rocks are to the original location of the Garden of
Eden, the earlier fossils should appear. (It should
take species longer to get far away from the Garden
and die than it should be for species to die close to
the Garden.)

3. At some point as we move up through the strata
we should see a sudden massive intrusion of fossils.
This would represent the 40 days and 40 nights of the
flood. This layer should also include archaeological
artifacts such as tools because humans existed and
would not have escaped with their tools. This should
be present because of the large number of organisms
(nearly every living creature on Earth) that died suddenly
under conditions ideal for fossilization. (A flood is the
very best environment for preserving fossils.) We should
be able to show that all of these fossils are in the same
strata all over the world.

4. Immediately above this sudden intrusion of fossils,
we should see a thin layer of marine fossils. This would
represent the year when, according to the Bible, the Earth
was covered with water. This layer of fossils should be
present everywhere since the flood was global in nature.

5. As we move up beyond this point in the strata, we
should see a fossil gap; the size of the gap should vary
depending on the geographical distance that a particular
rock formation is from Mount Ararat - the final resting
place of the Ark according to the Bible. As was the case
immediately after the Fall, it would take some time for slow
moving organisms to get very far away from where the Ark
came to rest.

6. This pattern should exist all over the World.

In fact, of course, it exists nowhere on Earth.

If the flood caused the fossil record, we should see the
fossils sorted according to size (larger on the bottom).

We don't see that either.
==
"That if you take a law like evolution and you make it a crime to teach
it... tomorrow you may make it a crime to read about it. And soon you may ban
books... because fanaticism and ignorance is forever busy, and needs feeding."
"Inherit The wind"
==
David Snoke A Biblical Case for an Old Earth
===
Pennock has published more than a dozen books about the intelligent design
creationist movement. His 1999 book, "Tower of Babel: the Evidence Against the
New Creationism"
===
Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation: The Explorer's Guide to the
Awesome Works of God by Dennis R. Petersen fundie
Examples: The Second Law of Thermodynamics began with the original sin. There
are no beneficial mutations. God created starlight to *appear* millions of
lightyears away.

Pennock Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics
Young & Edis' Why Intelligent Design Fails.
===
Obviously, creationists confuse the question "Has evolution occurred?" with
the question "What is the cause of evolution?" The scientific answer to the
first question is, of course, "yes," and the answer to the second question (at
least in part) is "natural selection." What logic and evidence leads scientists
to these answers?

The Logic Of Evolution
The conclusion that evolution has occurred is drawn from two simple
observations:

Observation 1: Living things come only from living things. Spontaneous
generation is not possible when living things are already in existence.

Observation 2: Fossil remains show that living things in the remote past were
very different from living things today.

THEREFORE:

Conclusion: Life has changed through time (evolved).

A dramatic proof of the thesis that life has changed through time is seen in
the fossil record of the vertebrates, animals having a segmented backbone. At
the beginning of the Cambrian Period (570-500 million years ago), there were
no vertebrates at all. Later in the Cambrian, problematic forms appeared which
seem to have been related to the vertebrates, but showed distant affinities
with the echinoderms as well. (Echinoderms today are represented by starfish,
sea lilies, sea cucumbers, etc.; embryologically they appear to compose the
phylum most closely related to the Chordata, the phylum to which vertebrates
belong.) Toward the end of the Cambrian Period, the first vertebrates
appeared: the ostracoderms, jawless fishes possessed of a bony armor plate and
having flattened bodies apparently adapted to a bottom-feeding way of life.

According to the fossil record, vertebrates went without jaws for many
millions of years. Finally, at the beginning of the Devonian Period (395-345
million years ago), the first fish with jaws entered their remains into the
record in the rocks. At the very end of the Devonian or the beginning of the
Carboniferous Period (345-280 million years ago), the first primitive
amphibians arose. These fish-like animals differed from their air-breathing
fish ancestors mostly in their elaboration of the bony structure of the paired
appendages - converting fins into hands and feet - and in reinforcement of the
structures attaching the paired appendages to the spinal column. The first
reptiles did not appear until the last half of the Carboniferous Period.

To give the lie to creationist claims that there are no connecting-link
fossils to join the vertebrate classes, the Permian Period (280-225 million
years ago) saw the appearance of an entire order of animals, the mammal-like
reptiles (Therapsida), which can be seen to change with time from typical,
primitive reptiles, into primitive mammals. It was not until late in the
Triassic Period (225-190 million years ago) that the therapsid-mammal
transmutation was complete. Contrary to the first chapter of Genesis, which
claims that the first mammals appeared on the earth a mere twenty-four hours
after the first fish, the first mammals did not appear on earth until more
than 300 million years of fish evolution had transpired!

Birds, which, according to both creation myths in Genesis, were created on the
same day as fish, do not enter the fossil record until the Jurassic Period
(190-136 million years ago). Representing an ultimate variation on the
dinosaur theme, birds trace their descent from reptiles quite different from
those ancestral to the mammals. Contrary to the claims of some creationists,
evolutionists do not claim that reptiles evolved into birds, and birds evolved
into mammals!

Even though the first mammals appeared in the Triassic Period, forms for which
the English language has names would not appear until the late Cretaceous
(136-65 million years ago), when opossum-like forms appeared, the Eocene Epoch
(60-40 million years ago), when primitive whales originated, and the Oligocene
Epoch (40-25 million years ago), when apes, monkeys, and primitive grazing
mammals appeared.

The record in the rocks, thus, is evidence either for fishes evolving into
birds and mammals, or it is evidence of thousands of successive "special
creations" - magical replacements of successive faunas by slightly different
ones. Curiously, the latter interpretation is as unbiblical as it is
unscientific.

If either of the biblical myths were true, all types of vertebrates - living
types of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fishes - would be found
along with bacteria and trilobites at the very beginning of the fossil record
and would be extractable from all rock layers of later ages. But of course,
nothing could be farther from reality. The infamous "gaps in the fossil
record," adduced by creationists as evidence against evolution, are actually a
devastating refutation of the idea that all forms of life were miraculously
zapped onto the earth at the same time!

The Logic Of Natural Selection
Since creationists in their attacks of evolution in general, and of natural
selection in particular, usually obfuscate the scientific principles involved
and generally substitute a straw man which is easier to ridicule, it is
important that we state clearly just what it is that science has to say on the
topic of how new species come to be. The modern ("synthetic") theory of natural
selection consists of a tightly interwoven fabric of observations and logical
conclusions drawn from them. In a nutshell, the structure of the theory is the
following:

Observation 1: All living things tend to reproduce in geometric progression,
so that if all offspring survived, the entire earth would be overrun by them.

Observation 2: In fact, however, the earth is NOT so overrun. The populations
of various species remain approximately constant in size from century to
century, due to the finite resources of the environment.

THEREFORE:

Conclusion A: There must be a competition for the available resources of the
environment, a "struggle for existence."

Observation 3: Heritable variations (mutations) are observed to occur
spontaneously, from time to time, in populations of all species.

Observation 4: In a given environment, some of these variations are helpful in
the struggle for existence, and others are harmful or neutral.

THEREFORE:

Conclusion B: A natural selection of individuals will result. Those with
helpful mutations will survive and expand in numbers, and those with harmful
mutations will tend to perish and be reduced in numbers.

Observation 5: The source of inheritable changes is either (1) change in the
sequence of chemical "bases" in the DNA molecules making up an organism's
genes, (2) rearrangement of genes on chromosomes, or (3) multiplication or
deletion of genes or chromosomes.

Observation 6: Physically and chemically speaking, there is no limit to the
amount of base changing possible in DNA or the amount of gene rearrangement
which can take place.

THEREFORE:

Conclusion C: There will be no limit to the amount of variation possible in
any given species. Given enough time, and changing environmental conditions,
mutation will add to mutation, and any species will gradually change into one
or more new species. As mutations cause greater and greater cumulative change,
and as sexual recombination assembles novel hereditary ensembles, species will
turn into new genera, genera into new families, etc.

With the exception of the observations concerning changes in DNA and
chromosomes as the source of evolutionary variation, the theory above was
discovered by Charles Darwin in the middle of the last century. Darwin came to
his theory grudgingly - he had originally been a creationist himself. But the
facts of nature which he uncovered in his trip around the world on H.M.S.
Beagle forced him to give up the Genesis mythology in favor of evolutionary
science, and made him formulate the theory of natural selection.

It is not often remembered that Darwin was not the only person to discover the
principle of natural selection. At the same time that Darwin was formulating
his theory, Alfred Russell Wallace - completely independent of Darwin, and
half a world away - was forced by his study of the plants and animals of the
Malay Archipelago to conclude that evolution had occurred, and that natural
selection was the motive force!

The lesson to be learned from this is that the facts of nature compel unbiased
minds to conclude that evolution has occurred, and that natural selection is at
least a part of the cause of evolutionary change. (Population size and genetic
isolation of populations are also important factors affecting the degree to
which evolutionary change will occur.)

As we examine the bizarre details of the Genesis creation myth, however, we
must ask: Is it conceivable that any person not already aware of the first
Genesis myth could go out into the world of nature and conclude that green
plants came into existence before the sun? That birds existed before reptiles?
Without knowledge of the second Genesis myth, who would come up with the idea
that man is older than both plants and animals, but that woman did not come
into existence until the last animal species had appeared? Without being
brainwashed by the Noah's Ark tale, what geologist would conclude that the
whole planet was covered by a shell of water 4,334 years ago? What independent
observer would conclude that the kiwi, which can neither swim nor fly, came to
New Zealand from Mt. Ararat in Turkey, but couldn't make it to Greece or
Australia? Could anyone conclude that there was once a "firmament" in the sky
-- with windows in it, and water above it?

Of course not. But we can be quite sure that even if the creationist legions
of darkness should succeed in eradicating all knowledge of Darwin's theory,
honest men and women of the future studying the facts of nature would discover
it anew. This is because evolutionary science is science, and is true in the
sense that it is testable and accords with the facts of nature. The
creationist dogmas, however, are not science and - to the extent that they are
testable - are contradicted by the testimony of nature.
==
The attorneys for the defendents in the Dover case argued incessently before
the judge that intelligent design was not religion and had nothing to do with
religion. As soon as the decision when against them, what were the first words
out of the mouth of Richard Thompson of the Thomas More Foundation. He stated
that the judges' decision was biased against Christianity. If intelligent
design has nothing to do with religion, how could the decision be biased
against Christianity (or any other religion). Might this type of doubletalk
lead one to doubt the veracity of the folks at the Thomas More Foundation?
===
The theory of evolution predicts sloppy design. Evolution can only
work on what is there. It will tinker, but it won't completely
redesign. Flawed design is what we see in nature. Creationism assumes
that an all-perfect creator designed everything. A prediction of
creationism is that a perfect creator would create things perfectly.
That is not what we seen in nature.
==
There are a lot of advantages in elected school boards but curriculum is not
one of them. Board members very rarely are experts in curriculum. There are
17,000 individual school districts in the U.S. and each school district could
decide what they want to teach.
==
The Universe doesn't "teach" anything. We learn about the Universe by examining
it. The imposition of anthropomorphic religious beliefs has impeded scientific
investigation of reality, not advanced it. Reality is what it is regardless of
how we feel about it or how it affects our feelings.
==
With little Ricky Santorum (BA, MBA, JD) heading off into the sunset, it is
difficult to forget what a great philosopher of science and education he was.
Here, therefore, are some of his greatest hits:
"Therefore, intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory that should
be taught in science classes." 2002 Washington Times op-ed article (source)
"[M]ainstream science does not simply "discover the truth"; instead it relies
in part on a set of unscientific, false philosophical presuppositions as the
basis for many of its conclusions. Thus, crucial aspects of what modern
science teaches us are simply shabby philosophy dressed up in a white lab
coat." 2004 endorsement of Dembski's The Design Revolution.
"Only a shallow, partisan understanding of "science" supports the false
philosophy of materialist reductionism, with its thoroughly unscientific
denial of formal and final causes in nature and its repudiation of the first
cause of all things? As the decline of true science has been a major factor in
the decline of Western culture, so too the renewal of science will play a big
part in cultural renewal." 2005 Foreword to Dembski's Darwin's Nemesis.
==
Biology is not the only science being rewritten in home-schooling textbooks.
Other sciences are also being modified to suit the creationist perspective
that God created Earth about 6000 years ago. Take for instance this advice on
climate change in the book Science Order and Reality published by A Beka Book:
"Because most environmental scientists see the universe and even life itself as
mere products of chance, it is easy for them to visualise potentially
catastrophic changes occurring on the Earth. As Christians we must remember
that God provided certain 'checks and balances' in creation to prevent many of
the global upsets that have been predicted by environmentalists. " For those
who still worry about global warming, another A Beka book, Science of the
Physical Creation, flatly denies it is happening: "All of the scientific
evidence gathered indicates that there is no danger of a global warming
disaster."
Chemistry textbooks argue that radiometric dating is unreliable and therefore
not a concern for those who believe in a 6000-year-old Earth. And geology
books claim that the Grand Canyon in Arizona - a gorge carved by the Colorado
river, exposing 2 billion years of Earth's history - was formed rapidly during
the worldwide Biblical flood, and all the sedimentary strata visible in the
canyon walls were deposited then.
Even astronomy is being rethought to address what many creationists consider
their most difficult challenge: explaining how starlight from billions of
light years away has reached the Earth in only a few thousand years. Books
like Taking Back Astronomy by Jason Lisle suggest possible explanations: maybe
God created the light already en route; or maybe the Milky Way sits in a large
gravitational well where the time-stretching effects of general relativity can
explain the anomaly; or - the creationists' favourite - maybe the speed of
light was much, much greater in the past.
==
In August 06, Science published an analysis of global public attitudes toward
evolution showing that, out of 34 sample countries, the US and Turkey had the
lowest acceptance of Darwin's theories.
==
Liberty University is hiring. They've got 27 openings for new faculty right
now, so if you're in the market, they might be tempting.
Biology: Two positions. Rank open. Ph.D. and compatibility with a young-earth
creationist philosophy required. 1) Human anatomy and physiology, 2)
undergraduate genetics. Supervision of undergraduate research expected.
Center for Creation Studies: Rank open. Ph.D. and experience in the origins
controversy from a young earth creation perspective required. Faculty will
teach the required course in creation as well as develop and/or teach in their
area of science expertise. Ability to teach courses in astronomy, anatomy and
physiology, or other biology courses preferred.
==
When creationists begin to respect truth, instead of spending all
their effort making up plausible lies to tell the ignorant, they
will have made a large step in the direction of the spiritual
piety they are trying to fake.
==
Oct 2006
The volatile issue of teaching creation science in public schools popped up in
the Alaska governor's race this week when Republican Sarah Palin said she
thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the state's public
classrooms.
===
Keep Darwin's 'lies' out of Polish schools: education official
Oct 14, 2006
WARSAW - Poland's deputy education minister called for the influential
evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin not to be taught in the country's
schools, branding them "lies."
"The theory of evolution is a lie, an error that we have legalised as a common
truth," Miroslaw Orzechowski, the deputy minister in the country's right-wing
coalition government, was quoted as saying by the Gazeta Wyborcza daily
Saturday.
Orzechowski said the theory was "a feeble idea of an aged non-believer," who
had come up with it "perhaps because he was a vegetarian and lacked fire
inside him."
The evolution theory of the 19th-century British naturalist holds that
existing animals and plants are the result of natural selection which
eliminated inferior species gradually over time. This conflicts with the
"creationist" theory that God created all life on the planet in a finite
number.
Orzechowski called for a debate on whether Darwin's theory should be taught in
schools.
"We should not teach lies, just as we should not teach bad instead of good, or
ugliness instead of beauty," he said. "We are not going to withdraw (Darwin's
theory) from the school books, but we should start to discuss it."
The deputy minister is a member of a Catholic far-right political group, the
League of Polish Families. The league's head, Roman Giertych, is education
minister in the conservative coalition government of Prime Minister Jaroslaw
Kaczynski.
Giertych's father Maciej, who represents the league in the European
Parliament, organised a discussion there last week on Darwinism. He described
the theory as "not supported by proof" and called for it be removed from
school books.
The far-right joined the government in May when Kaczynski's ruling
conservative Law and Justice (PiS) party, after months of ineffective minority
government, formed a coalition including LPR and the populist Sambroon party.
Roman Giertych has not spoken out on Darwinism, but the far-right politician's
stance on other issues has stirred protest in Poland since he joined the
government.
A school pupils' association was expected to demonstrate in front of the
education ministry on Saturday to call for his resignation.
==
Evolution Exposed by Paul, G. Humber
==
Republican candidate for lieutenant governor Bob Vander Plaats said he
believes intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution in schools.
Vander Plaats made the comments during a meeting with students on the Iowa
State University campus Tuesday. He had not discussed the issue with his
running mate, Jim Nussle, he told the students, but he believes the two ideas
warrant equal time in the classroom.
"If we are going to teach evolution, there is another viewpoint and one that
holds pretty good too (evolution) in regards to creation," Vander Plaats said.
"I think that is something that I would want to visit further along with Jim
Nussle in regards to 'Where are you at on that?' But my viewpoint is I would
like to give both of these (time in the classroom)."
==
Lord Dick Taverne has recently published a well-received book
"The March of Unreason" which comes to the defence of evidence-based science,
which he is convinced is also under pressure from irrational thinking.
==
Republican gubernatorial candidate Dick DeVos, a conservative
Christian, said last month that he approves of intelligent design
being taught along with evolution in science classes, though he said
the decision should be left up to local school districts.
==
Lawmaker Fires Back at Montana Governor
BOZEMAN, Montana
A Republican state lawmaker is criticizing Gov. Brian Schweitzer for
comments he made to a newspaper here about the lawmaker's belief that
the planet is not millions of years old.
Rep. Roger Koopman, R-Bozeman, called Schweitzer's statement
"incredibly bigoted."
Speaking to a crowd of school children, parents and teachers in
Bozeman on Friday about global warming, Schweitzer asked how many in
the crowd thought the Earth was hundreds of millions of years old.
Most of the children in the audience raised their hands.
He then asked how many believed the planet was less than a million
years old. At least two people, including Koopman, who was in the
crowd, raised their hands.
During an interview later with the Bozeman Daily Chronicle, Schweitzer
noted Koopman's response. He said some people believe the planet is
only 4,000 to 6,000 years old, despite geological evidence to the
contrary.
Schweitzer said he needs support from a state Legislature that will
help move Montana's agenda forward, "not people who think the Earth is
4,000 years old."
Koopman called the comments insulting.
"He insulted many Christian people and other people of faith that
arrived at that position other than the way I arrived at it," he said.
Schweitzer did not immediately return telephone calls seeking comment
Sunday or Monday.
Koopman said his belief in the Earth's age is not based on his faith,
but on his scientific investigations.
Koopman had initially planned to introduce a bill during the 2005
Legislature allowing the teaching of the controversial "intelligent
design" theory, and other alternatives to evolution, in public
schools. He never pursued the
measure and said he has no plans to introduce a similar bill in the
next session if re-elected.
The theory of creationism states that life and the Earth were created
by God from nothing, while intelligent design, a secular form of
creationism, argues the Earth was created by a series of intelligent
events, not random chance. Evolution says that species change in
response to environmental and genetic factors over the course of many
generations.
Critics contend intelligent design is nothing more than creationism in
disguise, but proponents say the theory isn't religious because it
doesn't state who or what the intelligent designer is.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that creationism is religion and
cannot be taught as science in public schools.
Information from: Bozeman Daily Chronicle
http://www.bozemand ailychronicle. com
==
The basic "theory" of ID comes down to this: "Some unknown 'intelligence'
(we'll leave it to you to figure out what that is) at some undetermined point
in the past, using unknown but presumably supernatural methods, designed some
(but not necessarily all) aspects of living things and/or the universe as a
whole". Not only is that untestable, it lacks simple coherence. There are so
many basic details missing that there's no way even to make sense of it.
The ID movement is thus left with the vague claim that they are "detecting
design" without specifying what, when, how, or by whom the designing took
place.
===
1981 Creationism Trial (McLean v. Arkansas)

McLean v. Arkansas Documentation Project
http://www.antievol ution.org/ projects/ mclean/new_ site/

In 1981, a remarkable court case in Arkansas pitted creationists
against pastors, priests, teachers, and scientists. "McLean et
al. vs. Arkansas" sought relief from Arkansas' Act 590, which
mandated that evolutionary biology instruction be balanced
with "creation science". Unlike the 1925 Scopes trial in
Tennessee, the Arkansas court heard testimony from a large
number of witnesses on both sides of the case. Judge Overton
ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and Act 590 was deemed
unconstitutional.

McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education
Decision by U.S. District Judge William R. Overton (1/5/1982)
http://www.talkorig ins.org/faqs/ mclean-v- arkansas. html
==
1987 Creationism Trial (Edwards v. Aguillard)

Edwards v. Aguillard
U.S. Supreme Court Decision
http://supreme. justia.com/ us/482/578/ case.html

This is the text of the 1987 United States Supreme Court decision
striking down a Louisiana law that required if evolution is taught in
public schools then creationism must also be taught. This 7-2 decision
ended any prospect of public schools in the United States being legally
forced to teach explicate creationism. One consequence of this case was
that some antievolutionists choose to use the term "intelligent design"
instead of "creationism. "
http://www.talkorig ins.org/faqs/ edwards-v- aguillard. html ]
==
One of the Big Lie tactics of young earth creationists is to go around
claiming "The idea of the antiquity of the Earth in geology (and the
antiquity of the Universe in astronomy) is based on evolutionary bias."
As usual, the truth is otherwise...

Historically, just as one example, the geologic column had been
discovered by geologists and was being discussed in geology articles and books
decades before the 1859 publication of *Origin of Species* by Charles
Darwin.

See:
"Homo sapiens Deciphers Geologic Time"
by Richard Miller (Geologist, San Diego State University, Professor
Emeritus)
http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~rhmiller/geologictime/GeologicTime.htm

Conceptually, neither geology nor astronomy are based on any
assumptions regarding biological evolution. They are simply independent fields
of science whose discoveries and concepts concerning the antiquity of the
Earth and the antiquity of the Universe have nothing to do with
biological evolution.
==
ICR Tenets on Creationism

The Institute for Creation Research Graduate School has a unique
statement of faith for its faculty and students, incorporating most
of the basic Christian doctrines in a creationist framework,
organized in terms of two parallel sets of tenets, related to God's
created world and God's inspired Word, respectively. Reproduced below
are the ICR Educational Philosophy and its Tenets of Scientific
Creationism and Biblical Creationism.

All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six
literal days of the creation week described in Genesis 1:1-2:3, and
confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11.

The Biblical record of primeval earth history in Genesis 1-11 is
fully historical and perspicuous, including the creation and fall of
man, the curse on the creation and its subjection to the bondage of
decay, the promised Redeemer, the worldwide cataclysmic deluge in the
days of Noah, the post-diluvian renewal of man's commission to subdue
the earth (now augmented by the institution of human govemment) and
the origin of nations and languages at the tower of Babel.

This is religious dogma, not science.
==
The Navajo Creation Story
The Navajo creation story involves three underworlds where important events
happened to shape the Fourth World where we now live.
The Navajo were given the name Nihookaa Diyan Dine by their creators. It means
"Holy Earth People" or "Lords of the Earth". Navajos today simply call
themselves "Dine", meaning "The People". The Tewa Indians were the first to
call them "Navahu", which means "the large area of cultivated land". The
Mexicans knew them as "Apaches Du Nabahu" (Apaches of the Cultivated Fields),
where "Apache" (Enemy) was picked up from the Zuni Indian language. The
"Apaches Du Nabahu" were known as a special group somewhat distinct from the
rest of the Apaches. Alonso de Benavides changed the name to "Navaho" in a
book written in 1630. The English name the Dine officially use for themselves
is "Navajo". Recently, Navajos have been referring to call themselves by their
original name, "Dine".
According to the Dine, they emerged from three previous underworlds into this,
the fourth, or "Glittering World", through a magic reed. The first people from
the other three worlds were not like the people of today. They were animals,
insects or masked spirits as depicted in Navajo ceremonies. First Man ('Altse
Hastiin), and First Woman ('Altse 'Asdzaa), were two of the beings from the
First or Black World. First Man was made in the east from the meeting of the
white and black clouds. First Woman was made in the west from the joining of
the yellow and blue clouds. Spider Woman (Na ashjeii 'Asdzaa), who taught
Navajo women how to weave, was also from the first world.
Once in the Glittering World, the first thing the people did was build a sweat
house and sing the Blessing Song. Then they met in the first house (hogan) made
exactly as Talking God (Haashcheeltii) had prescribed. In this hogan, the
people began to arrange their world, naming the four sacred mountains
surrounding the land and designating the four sacred stones that would become
the boundaries of their homeland. In actuality, these mountains do not contain
the symbolic sacred stones. The San Francisco Peaks (Dookoosliid), represents
the Abalone and Coral stones. It is located just north of Flagstaff, and is
the Navajos religious western boundary. Mt. Blanco (Tsisnaasjini'), in
Colorado, represents the White Shell stone, and represents the Navajos
religious eastern boundary. Mt. Taylor (Tsoodzil), east of Grants, New Mexico,
represents the Turquoise stone, and represents the Navajos religious southern
boundary. Mt. Hesperus (Dibe Nitsaa), in Colorado, represents the Black Jet
stone, and represents the Navajos religious northern boundary. Pictures of
these sacred mountains can be found by clicking here.
After setting the mountains down where they should go, the Navajo deities, or
"Holy People", put the sun and the moon into the sky and were in the process
of carefully placing the stars in an orderly way. But the Coyote, known as the
trickster, grew impatient from the long deliberations being held, and seized
the corner of the blanket where it lay and flung the remaining stars into the
sky.
The Holy People continued to make the necessities of life, like clouds, trees
and rain. Everything was as it should be when the evil monsters appeared and
began to kill the new Earth People. But a miracle happened to save them, by
the birth of Ever Changing Woman (Asdzaa Nadleehe) at Gobernador Knob
(Choolii), New Mexico.
Changing Woman grew up around El Huerfano Mesa (Dzil Naoodilii), in northern
New Mexico. She married the Sun and bore two son, twins, and heroes to the
Navajo people. They were known as "Monster Slayer" and "Child-Born-of-Water".
The twins traveled to their father the Sun who gave them weapons of lighting
bolts to fight the dreaded monsters. Every place the Hero Twins killed a
monster it turned to stone. An example of this is the lave flows near Mt.
Taylor in New Mexico, believed to be the blood from the death of Yeiitsoh, or
the "Monster who Sucked in People". All of the angular rock formations on the
reservation, such as the immense Black Mesa (Dzil Yijiin), are seen as the
turned-to-stone bodies of the monsters.
With all of the monsters dead, the Navajo deities, or "Holy People", turned
their attention to the making of the four original clans. Kiiyaa aanii, or
Tall House People, was the first clan. They were made of yellow and white
corn. Eventually other clans traveled to the area round the San Juan River,
bring their important contributions to the tribe. Some were Paiutes who
brought their beautiful baskets. Others were Pueblos who shared their farming
and weaving skills. Still others were Utes and Apaches.
For her husband, the "Sun", to visit her every evening, Changing Woman went to
live in the western sea on an island made of rock crystal. Her home was made of
the four sacred stones: Abalone, White Shell, Turquoise, and Black Jet. During
the day she became lonely and decided to make her own people. She made four
clans from the flakes of her skin. These were known as the Near Water People,
Mud People, Salt Water People, and Bitter Water People. When these newly
formed clans heard that there were humans to the east who shared their
heritage, they wanted to go meet them.
==
Humphrey, Nicholas. 21 February 1997. What shall we Tell
the Children?, Amnesty Lecture, Oxford. Cited in Andrew
Brown, _The Darwin Wars: How Stupid Genes Became Selfish
Gods_ (Great Britain: Simon & Schuster, 1999), 241pp., 172.
Humphrey is an atheist:
Children have a right not to have their minds addled by
nonsense. And we as a society have a duty to protect them
from it. So we should no more allow parents to teach their
children to believe in the literal truth of the Bible, or that
the planets rule their lives, than we should allow parents to
knock their children's teeth out or lock them in a dungeon.
==
1999 _The Evolution Deceit: The Scientific Collapse of
Darwinism and Its Ideological Background_, 8th ed. (United Kingdom:
Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd.), 266pp.
http://evolutiondeceit.com/books.php
==
Behe, in his book 'Darwin's Black Box,' fails to mention the mounting
evidence that points to the evolution of the chordate blood clotting
cascade from the much simpler hemolymph clotting system found in very
early invertebrate life forms. The gene sequence of fibrinogen, a
major clotting component, has been found in sea cucumbers & other
invertebrates. And the protease enzymes that form the cascade itself
show a very high degree of conserved sequence homology with the
hemolymph clotting enzyme found in invertebrates such as lobsters.
==
According to a 2005 Pew Research Center poll, 70 percent of evangelical
Christians believe that living beings have always existed in their present
form, compared with 32 percent of Protestants and 31 percent of Catholics.
Politically, 60 percent of Republicans are creationists, whereas only 11
percent accept evolution, compared with 29 percent of Democrats who are
creationists and 44 percent who accept evolution. A 2005 Harris Poll found
that 63 percent of liberals but only 37 percent of conservatives believe that
humans and apes have a common ancestry. What these figures confirm for us is
that there are religious and political reasons for rejecting evolution.
==
Reality does not match what creationists want. Creationists don't
have the faith to acept that, so they play games to avoid reality.
One of their common coping strategies is outright denial (e.g.,
hydrologic sorting can explain fossil ordering), but that gets hard
to defend. There is a subtler form of denial, substituting
definitions in place of reality. His strategy is common in
creationism. It is the heart of baraminology, for example. But it
still comes down to the creationist playing God and making the world
in the image they want. There is a spiritual principle which can be
summarized, Get real. That principle cannot be followed by focusing
on language over reality.
==
According to Norse myths, the world was created by a big dwarf getting his head
bashed in... skull->sky, brains->land, blood->water... and humans was made from
drift-wood -- Ash and Embla.
===
The scientist in assuming naturalism, is, by definition, rejecting
that a god is the cause of something. For example: If I assume that X
is caused by a god I automatically assume that naturalism is not the
cause. Likewise if a scientist claims that naturalism is the 'cause'
of an event then automatically said scientist is rejecting that a god
is the cause. If, however, as you imply, a scientist cannot even
consider whether a god is the cause of an event, then the scientist
really cannot draw a conclusion about any event, and the origin or
cause thereof. This creates something of a dilemma for the scientist I
would have thought (because 'god', or 'notGod', are exhaustive
options). ... Anyone with even the smallest amount of intellect could
work out that a scientist will say "naturalism is the cause of X" when
the only scientific statement that a scientist can make is that
"naturalism is the cause of X".
==
Kansas hearings
Plaintiffs attorney Eric Rothschild had stacked 58 scientific papers, nine
books and other textbook chapters on evolutionary evidence supporting
development of the human immune system in front of Behe on the witness stand.
==
Scientific version
Influx of dust to the Earth	4 * 10-9 g/cm2yr	(20,084 tons/yr)
Influx of dust to the Moon	2 * 10-9 g/cm2yr (2,989 tons/yr)
Density of the dust	2.24 g/cm3	 (140 lbs/ft3)
Area of the Earth	5.10 * 10^18 cm2 (5.49 * 10^15 ft2)
Area of the Moon	1.52 * 10^18 cm2 (1.63 * 10^15 ft2)
Age of the Earth and the Moon	4.55 * 10^9 yr

RESULTS:
1) Layer on the Earth 8.1 cm thick
2) Layer on the Moon 4.1 cm thick
==
There were 20 geomagnetic-field reversals over the past 3.5 million years.
==
The progress of science wont stop by gutting its education in public schools,
it will only stop in America. Somewhere in China and India, educators and
parents are preparing for this century, not the 17th century.
After our system is outthought by these people, preachers will have many
social and economic problems to ask God to solve.
==
Rev. Paul Erbrich, emeritus professor of natural philosophy from the University
of Munich, who has described evolution as a "fundamentally inadequate"
explanation of the origins of life; and Robert Spaemann, a conservative German
philosopher who has challenged "evolutionism," or the philosophical
applications of Darwin's theory.
==
Evolution Major Vanishes From Approved Federal List

Evolutionary biology has vanished from the list of acceptable fields of study
for recipients of a federal education grant for low-income college students.
The omission is inadvertent, said Katherine McLane, a spokeswoman for the
Department of Education, which administers the grants. There is no explanation
for it being left off the list, Ms. McLane said. It has always been an eligible
major.
Another spokeswoman, Samara Yudof, said evolutionary biology would be restored
to the list, but as of last night it was still missing.
If a major is not on the list, students in that major cannot get grants unless
they declare another major, said Barmak Nassirian, associate executive director
of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers.
Mr. Nassirian said students seeking the grants went first to their college
registrar, who determined whether they were full-time students majoring in an
eligible field.
If a field is missing, that student would not even get into the process, he
said.
That the omission occurred at all is worrying scientists concerned about
threats to the teaching of evolution.
One of them, Lawrence M. Krauss, a physicist at Case Western Reserve
University, said he learned about it from someone at the Department of
Education, who got in touch with him after his essay on the necessity of
teaching evolution appeared in The New York Times on Aug. 15. Dr. Krauss would
not name his source, who he said was concerned about being publicly identified
as having drawn attention to the matter.
An article about the issue was posted Tuesday on the Web site of The Chronicle
of Higher Education.
Dr. Krauss said the omission would be of great concern if evolutionary biology
had been singled out for removal, or if the change had been made without
consulting with experts on biology. The grants are awarded under the National
Smart Grant program, established this year by Congress. (Smart stands for
Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent.)
The program provides $4,000 grants to third- or fourth-year, low-income
students majoring in physical, life or computer sciences; mathematics;
technology; engineering; or foreign languages deemed critical to national
security.
The list of eligible majors (which is online at
ifap.ed.gov/dpcletters/attachments/GEN0606A.pdf) is drawn from the Education
Departments Classification of Instructional Programs, or CIP (pronounced sip),
a voluminous and detailed classification of courses of study, arranged in a
numbered system of sections and subsections.
Part 26, biological and biomedical sciences, has a number of sections, each of
which has one or more subsections. Subsection 13 is ecology, evolution,
systematics and population biology. This subsection itself has 10
sub-subsections. One of them is 26.1303 evolutionary biology, the scientific
study of the genetic, developmental, functional, and morphological patterns
and processes, and theoretical principles; and the emergence and mutation of
organisms over time.
Though references to evolution appear in listings of other fields of
biological study, the evolutionary biology sub-subsection is missing from a
list of fields of study on the National Smart Grant list there is an empty
space between line 26.1302 (marine biology and biological oceanography) and
line 26.1304 (aquatic biology/limnology).
Students cannot simply list something else on an application form, said Mr.
Nassirian of the registrars association. Your declared major maps to a CIP
code, he said.
Mr. Nassirian said people at the Education Department had described the
omission as a clerical mistake. But it is odd, he said, because applying the
subject codes is a fairly mechanical task. It is not supposed to be the
subject of any kind of deliberation.
I am not at all certain that the omission of this particular major is
unintentional, he added. But I have to take them at their word.
Scientists who knew about the omission also said they found the clerical
explanation unconvincing, given the furor over challenges by the religious
right to the teaching of evolution in public schools. Its just awfully
coincidental, said Steven W. Rissing, an evolutionary biologist at Ohio State
University.
Jeremy Gunn, who directs the Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief at the
American Civil Liberties Union, said that if the change was not immediately
reversed we will certainly pursue this.
Dr. Rissing said removing evolutionary biology from the list of acceptable
majors would discourage students who needed the grants from pursuing the
field, at a time when studies of how genes act and evolve are producing
valuable insights into human health.
This is not just some kind of nicety, he said. We are doing a terrible
disservice to our students if this is yet another example of making sure
science doesnt offend anyone.
Dr. Krauss of Case Western said he did not know what practical issues would
arise from the omission of evolutionary biology from the list, given that
students would still be eligible for grants if they declared a major in
something else biology, say.
I am sure an enterprising student or program director could find a way to put
themselves in another slot, he said. But why should they have to do that?
Mr. Nassirian said he was not so sure. Candidly, I dont think most
administrators know enough about this program to help students overcome the
apparent objection to evolutionary biology, he said. Undergraduates would be
even less knowledgeable about the issue, he added.
Dr. Krauss said: Removing that one major is not going to make the nation
stupid, but if this really was removed, specifically removed, then I see it as
part of a pattern to put ideology over knowledge. And, especially in the
Department of Education, that should be abhorred.
==
Shermer penned "Why Darwin Matters." With admirable patience and humility, he
spells out each of the fancy I.D. tenets, like "design inference," in which
only a higher intelligence could have come up with something as cool and
ingenious as DNA. Shermer shows how imperfect evolution, and not intelligent
design, has been, for generations, the only quantifiable driver behind nature's
wonders.
==
Kansas state school board
The chairman of the school board, Dr Steve Abrams, a veterinarian, is not
merely a strict creationist. He has openly stated that he believes that God
created the universe 6,500 years ago, although he was quoted in /The New York
Times/ this month as saying that his personal faith doesnt have anything to do
with science. He goes on to add: A key concern should not be whether Dr Abramss
religious views have a place in the classroom, but rather *how someone whose
religious views require a denial of essentially all modern scientific
knowledge can be chairman of a state school board.
==
An ABC News poll released Aug 2006 found that 61 percent of Americans
believe the account of creation in the Bible's book of Genesis is "literally
true" rather than a story meant as a "lesson."
==
1981 Creationism Trial (McLean v. Arkansas)
McLean v. Arkansas Documentation Project
http://www.antievolution.org/projects/mclean/new_site/

In 1981, a remarkable court case in Arkansas pitted creationists
against pastors, priests, teachers, and scientists. "McLean et
al. vs. Arkansas" sought relief from Arkansas' Act 590, which
mandated that evolutionary biology instruction be balanced
with "creation science". Unlike the 1925 Scopes trial in
Tennessee, the Arkansas court heard testimony from a large
number of witnesses on both sides of the case. Judge Overton
ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and Act 590 was deemed
unconstitutional.

McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education
Decision by U.S. District Judge William R. Overton (1/5/1982)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html
==
The Creation Evolution Controversy: A Bibliographic Guide from 1839 to the
Present : Articles: 002 (Garland Reference Library of Social Science)
(Hardcover) by Jerry Bergman
==
The Daily Telegraph in London, at the web page
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/12/wleakey12.xml
presents an interesting story about hominid fossils:
"Powerful evangelical churches are pressing Kenya's national museum to
sideline its world-famous collection of hominid bones pointing to man's
evolution from ape to human.
Leaders of the country's six-million-strong Pentecostal congregation want
Dr Richard Leakey's ground-breaking finds relegated to a back room instead
of being given their usual prime billing.
"The collection includes the most complete skeleton yet found of Homo
erectus, the 1.7 million-year-old Turkana Boy unearthed by Dr Leakey's team
in 1984 at Nariokotome, near Lake Turkana in northern Kenya.
"The museum also holds bones from several specimens of Australopithecus
anamensis, believed to be the first hominid to walk upright, four million
years ago. Together the artefacts amount to the clearest record yet
discovered of the origins of Homo sapiens."
Hide the evidence, hide the evidence. Maybe reality will change as a result.
==
"I also don't think that there is really a theory of
intelligent design at the present time to propose as a
comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is,
whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme.
There is no intelligent design theory that's comparable.
Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific
people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of
them are quite convinced that it's doable, but that's for
them to prove... No product is ready for competition in the
educational world."

- Philip Johnson (Spring 2006)
(Johnson is one of the founders of the Discovery Institute's ID
organization called the Center for Science and Culture)
==
These are names assigned to the many types of creationism:

1. Flat Earth creationism
2. Geocentric creationsm
3. Young Earth Crationism
4. Old Earth Creationism
5. Gap Creationism
6. Day-Age Creationism
7. Progressive Creationism
8. Intelligent Design Creationism
9. Evolutionary Creationism
10. Theistic Evolution
===
Intelligent Thought: Science vs. the Intelligent Design Movement, ed. John
Brockman, Vintage Press, May 2006), , has chapters by most of the big names in
evolutionary thought: Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, Steven
Pinker, Lee Smolin, Stuart A. Kauffman and others. In the introduction Brockman
summarizes the situation from his perspective: materialistic Darwinism is the
only scientific approach to origins, and the bizarre claims of
fundamentalists with beliefs consistent with those of the Middle Ages must
be opposed.
==
Astronomy Lesson
12 Then Joshua spoke to Yahweh in the day when Yahweh delivered up the
Amorites before the children of Israel; and he said in the sight of
Israel, "Sun, stand still on Gibeon! You, moon, stop in the valley of
Aijalon!"

13 The sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation had
avenged themselves of their enemies. Isn't this written in the book of
Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of the sky, and didn't hurry to go
down about a whole day.

14 There was no day like that before it or after it, that Yahweh
listened to the voice of a man; for Yahweh fought for Israel.

Historical note #1:
The Hebrews migrated into Canaan circa 1200 BCE, a time when the great
powers of the region were neutralized by troubles of various kinds.
Joshua led their initial attacks on the area prior to settlement.

Historical note #2:
During this time the Babylonians were recording all kinds of
astronomical observations. During this particular period Ca 1200 BCE
they were incorporating the following additional data into their
observations: A tabular list of the 12 stars of Elam, 12 stars of
Akkad, and 12 stars of Amurru and the start of exact observations of
heliacally rising stars.

Historical note #3:
The Chinese are thought to have had astronomical records possibly going
back as far as 3000 B.C.E. Oracle bones dating to the Shang Dynasty
(about 1800-1200 B.C.E.) also survive. They show a 19-year Moon cycle,
and a 29 1/2-day lunar month. Days are grouped in 60-day cycles.
==
POOR MOTHER NATURE
Last night on television, I saw a very damaging tornado and they referred to
it as the work of Mother Nature. Even though many people were killed, I
never heard one fault god for his dereliction of duty. What is the purpose
of an omnipotent god if he is absent when there is a true need? Those who
are Christian are trained to always turn to magical thinking when a
catastrophe happens. Who gets the blame? Not god, but poor Mother Nature.
==
As Dr. Collins put it, when religions require belief in fundamentally flawed
claims about the world, they force curious and intelligent congregants to
reject science, effectively committing intellectual suicide,
==
Dr. Wolpert writes about the way people think about cause and effect, citing
among other work experiments on how we reason, how we assess risk, and the
rules of thumb and biases that guide us when we make decisions. He is looking
into what he calls causal belief the idea that events or conditions we
experience have a cause, possibly a supernatural cause.
Human reasoning is beset with logical problems that include overdependence on
authority, overemphasis on coincidence, distortion of the evidence, circular
reasoning, use of anecdotes, ignorance of science and failures of logic, he
writes. And whatever these traits may say about acceptance of religion, they
have a lot to do with public misunderstanding of science.
So, he concludes, We have to both respect, if we can, the beliefs of others,
and accept the responsibility to try and change them if the evidence for them
is weak or scientifically improbable.
==
"...To deny that basic concepts of historical method with respect to
evolution is worse than just denying science; it is denying simple
common sense. Down that road lies only solipsism or schizophrenia,
neither of which can be us. - Daniel Harper
==
"...the culture war really comes down to, does man's reason
determine truth, or is there a God who knows everything, who we can
trust, who has revealed to mankind the truth about history, which we
would say is what the Bible is, and a record of true history. The
bottom line is, if you don't have someone who knows everything, then
there's always an aspect of man's reason that you're trusting in.
Man doesn't know everything and hasn't always been there, so you can
never therefore say that there is an absolute authority because man
is his own authority. So it's really a battle between human reason
and the infinite God of the Bible."

- Ken Ham (7/22/2006 interview in The Kentucky Post)
==
Feeling Strains, Baptist Colleges Cut Church Ties
July, 2006
GEORGETOWN, Ky. The request seemed simple enough to the Rev. Hershael W.
York, then the president of the Kentucky Baptist Convention. He asked
Georgetown College, a small Baptist liberal arts institution here, to consider
hiring for its religion department someone who would teach a literal
interpretation of the Bible.
But to William H. Crouch Jr., the president of Georgetown, it was among the
last straws in a struggle that had involved issues like who could be on the
board of trustees and whether the college encouraged enough freedom of inquiry
to qualify for a chapter of Phi Beta Kappa.
Dr. Crouch and his trustees decided it was time to end the colleges 63-year
affiliation with the religious denomination. From my point of view, it was
about academic freedom, Dr. Crouch said. I sat for 25 years and watched my
denomination become much more narrow and, in terms of education, much more
interested in indoctrination.
Georgetown is among a half-dozen colleges and universities whose ties with
state Baptist conventions have been severed in the last four years, part of a
broad realignment in which more than a dozen Southern Baptist universities,
including Wake Forest and Furman, have ended affiliations over the last two
decades. Georgetowns parting was ultimately amicable. But many have been
tense, even bitter.
==
First, ID isn't new. Here's Paley in 1802
There cannot be a design without a designer; contrivance
without a contriver; order without choice; arrangement without without
any thing capable of arranging: subserviancy and relation to a
purpose, without that which could intend a purpose: means suitable to
an end without the end ever having been contemplated, or the means
accommodated to it. Arrangement; disposition of parts, subserviency of
means to an end, relation of instruments to an use, imply the presence
of intelligence and mind.
==
Q: Is there any other evidence for creationism besides the Bible?
A: Yes.

Q: Can you give us some?
A: Yes.

Q: Could you give us a specific example?
A: Yes.

Q: What would be a specific example of evidence for Creationism?
A: I've already answered that question.
==
From many words and essays trying to define irreducible complexity
and specified complexity, ID has failed to specifically define where
scientific observation and ID part company. In rejecting evolution,
ID tends to agree with the "kinds"--vaguely related to species--
mentioned in Genesis, but they have not been able to define what a
kind is. ID also fails to account for why all mammals, for example,
are remarkably similar in terms of body plan, metabolic processes,
fetal development, blood, bones, and DNA---similarities which are
readily explained by evolutionary theory. ID has also become trapped
in accepting that some examples of evolution are routinely observed--
which they accept as "microevolution"--while they reject what they
call "macroevolution". ID has never been able to define a boundary
between these two terms, which are not used by mainstream
scientists. By accepting "micro-evolution", they have implicitly
accepted the main tenents of evolution.
. Within the informed lay communities, ID has failed to gain
traction because ID adherents single out the science of evolution to
apply "intelligent design" to. ID does not attack the historical and
descriptive sciences of astronomy, geology, archeology on similar
grounds, nor does ID try to offer its "designer" thesis as an
explanation for the sciences of biology, medicine, chemistry, and
physics. This serves to undermine ID's claims to a broadly
acceptable point of view and allows the IDers to be portrayed as
having an axe to grind solely with evolutionary science.
ID has also suffered from adopting a seriously flawed logic, namely
that by attacking evolution and "disproving" it, then that shows that
ID creationism must be correct. Many have been quick to point out
that even if the idea of evolution is found to have flaws, then that
does not make ID correct. And in fact, very large understandings in
science, such as evolution or the germ theory of disease or gravity,
based on mountains of evidence, are rarely thrown out wholesale, but
they become modified to incorporate new ideas. (This, of course, is
not always true--the philogiston and caloric theories of heat have
been abandoned entirely.)
A major problem with ID is that it accepts supernatural forces and
actions as being on the same plane with engineering and real
science. Since evolution is based on an interwoven network of
concepts from geology, physics, astronomy, paleontology, if ID wins
wide acceptance, then all such disciplines are equally discredited.
Few conservatives or liberals wish to go there. The problem is the
mind-set of ID.
The mindset is superstitious in nature. There are many people who
are happy to see science and rationalism debased, because they hold
to views about psychic phenomena, UFOs, appearances of the Virgin
Mary in weird places, astrology, dowsing, predictions of Nostradamus,
hidden codes in the Bible, reincarnation, a heaven/paradise after
death, and a hundred other non-rational beliefs. The fundamental
issue is a rational, healthy outlook on the world, with joy in its
beauties and sadness for what some people sometimes do, vs. a
supernatural outlook, in which gods intervene willy-nilly, some
people have "hidden psychic powers", and happiness is determined (or
pre-determined) by weird forces that do not stand up to rational inquiry.
But, now suppose we have an "intelligent design" for an eye. Where
and when does this get implemented? Since the coding starts with the
DNA of a single cell, maybe each fertilized egg is made by the god-
designer. On the other hand, maybe the divine intervention comes
only when cells begin to differentiate. Or maybe when humans evolved
2 million years ago and the design has been on auto-pilot ever
since? And was the planet earth itself intelligently designed?
These are many questions ID has no answer for.
==
"The way evolution is being taught is antagonistic to students'
religious beliefs.
But creationism has nothing to do with religion, so the creationist keep
telling us!
So why is their religion being offended?
==
Kent Hovind has a stunningly ridiculous idea that the Great Pyramid of Khufu
was built by either Adam and Enoch before the flood or by Noah and Shem after
the flood
======
PATRIOT UNIVERSITY where Hovind got a "degree".
6915 Palmer Park Boulevard Colorado Springs, Colorado 80915 (719) 597-7512
"Claiming to be a ministry of Hilltop Baptist Church, the college charges
between $15 and $32 per credit and offers degrees through the doctoral level.
Their catalog contains no information on the school's faculty or their
credentials. Patriot claims accreditation by the American Accrediting
Association of Theological Institutions (see Chapter 3), an accrediting mill
associated with Christian Bible College in Rocky Mount, North Carolina.
Advertises or has advertised in Pulpit Helps."
==
According to polls, 63% of us Americans prefer to believe in the
talking snake in the Genesis fairy tale than in evolution.
I mean, if I told you that a snake came up to me in my garden and started
talking in fine Aramaic and that what he was to say would
determine the entire future of the human race, would you believe me?
But if I told you this was written in a book 2000 years ago, does it
make it more believable?
===
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/bartelt_dissertation_on_hovind_thesis.htm
Hovind Dr degree

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=485 Hovind museum

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040501/news_1n1creation.html museum
===
Published - July, 13, 2006
Evangelist arrested on tax evasion
A Pensacola evangelist was arrested Thursday and indicted in federal court on
58 charges that include income tax evasion, making threats against
investigators and filing false complaints against Internal Revenue Service
agents.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Miles Davis handed down the indictment against Kent
Hovind, who operated a creationist theme park Dinosaur Adventure Land, off Old
Palafox Road. Hovinds wife, Jo Hovind, was also indicted on 44 of the counts
and appeared in court alongside her husband. Arraignment for the Hovinds is
scheduled for2 p.m. Monday. The couple was released pending their trial but are
not allowed to travel outside the Northern District of Florida.
======
http://www.kent-hovind.com/ Anti- Hovind
==
"Summary: On CBN's The 700 Club, host Pat Robertson claimed that 'the
evolutionists worship atheism' and that because 'evolution becomes their
religion' it is "an establishment of religion contrary to the First
Amendment." Robertson went on to suggest that evolution advocates were
'fanatics,' stating further, 'it is a religion, it is a cult. It is cultish
religion.'
==
Below is an exact transcript from his uncopyrighted DVD, Part 6, The Hovind
Theory giving a summarised account of his hypothesis:

Noah and the animals got safely into the Ark
A 300-degree below zero Fahrenheit ice meteor came flying toward the Earth
and broke up in space
As it was breaking up, some of the fragments got caught and became the rings
around the planets. They made the craters on the moon, the craters on some of
the planets and what was left over came down and splattered on top of the
North and South Pole.
The super-cold snow fell on the poles mostly, burying the Mammoths standing
up. The dump of ice on the North and South pole cracked the crust of the earth
releasing the fountains of the deep.
The spreading ice caused the ice age effects, the glacier effects that we
see. It buried the mammoths and made the earth wobble around for a few
thousand years and it made the canopy collapse that used to protect the earth
and opened up the fountains of the deep.
During the first few months of the flood, the dead animals would settle out,
and dead plants, and get buried. They would become coal if theyre plants and
oil if theyre animals and those are still found today in huge grave yards
fossils found in grave yards, oil found in big pockets under the ground.
During the last few months of the flood, the unstable plates of the earth
would shift around some places lift up, other places sink down - thats going
to form ocean basins and mountain ranges and the run off would cause
incredible erosion like Grand Canyon in a couple of weeks.
Over the next few hundred years, the ice caps would slowly melt back
retreating to their current size. The added water from the ice melt would
raise the ocean level creating whats called a continental shelf
It would also absorb carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere which allows more
radiation to get in which is going to shorten peoples life spans and in the
days of Peleg it finally took effect.
The earth still today shows the effects of this devastating flood 10]
===
ID is poor science and worse theology. It reduces God to a magic word to use
whenever we are stymied by a lack of information. It renders God as being
everything we cannot explain. If we do not understand a natural process, it
must be God's handiwork.
==
We see the same syndrome as in the Catholic Church in the semi-established
hard-core fundamentalist religions of the USA. Their leading lights have
made predictions about reality that science has had the temerity to disprove
Thus they react by trying to outlaw the science wherever and however they can
And failing to achieve the power to actually do that, they settle for second
best: sowing confusion and lies about it.
==
Intelligence is the ability to learn from experience. Gods already know
everything, so they are not intelligent.
==
If Natural Selection is a tautology, it is inevitable and true and there's
nothing creationism can do about it.
==
The idea that science appeals to reason and creation to faith relegates
faith to one of the higher superstitions, incapable of holding its own
empirically or intellectually.
==
http://www.jci.org/cgi/content/full/116/5/1134 anti-ID
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ much science
==
In his book The Lie: Evolution, Ken Ham writes:
My parents knew that evolution was wrong because it was obvious from Genesis
that God had given us the details of the creation of the world.
===
Some examples for Darwin's Theory of Evolution (which is scientific
because it has these tests):

1. A static fossil record - in other words, if someone was to find
things such as mammalian fossils in Precambrian rocks.
2. Discovery of a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating
- this would restrict evolution to "kinds" as the biblical creationists
claim.
===
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/
Henry_Morris%27_Fossil_Sorting_Predictions_in_%22Scientific_Creationism%22

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/List_of_Creationist_arguments

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Fossil_Sorting
==
http://www.csm.org.uk/expo.php English creation museum
==
There were 500 similar species of bombardier beetles
with varying degrees of the same function and which demonstrated that
there were intermediate forms of its "explosive" capability.
==
http://www.wooster.edu/geology/geo350mw/geo350mw.html
==
Also keep in mind that in my many years of discussions with
creationists, most often when a creationist uses the phrase "God can
do everything," what he's trying to imply is that God made the world
only look like it has been around for billions of years (the
apparent age argument). Of course, since the God taught by the
apparent age advocates created a bunch of fake fossils (of organism
that never lived and died) in fake geologic strata (not left by
environments that never existed), and fake impact craters (not left
by asteroids, comets, and meteors that never really existed and
never really hit the Earth), and also created fake illusions of
events out in distant parts of the Universe that never really
happened (that we observe in astronomy, such as the stellar
explosion SN1987A that took place about 168,000 years ago), then
apparent age advocates are telling us that their God is a great
Divine Deceiver, meaning that according to them their God really
does do everything: including lie like the Father of Lies. Needless
to say, I don't take the apparent age argument seriously.
==
SN1987A and The Antiquity of the Universe
http://creationism.outersystem.us/ancientproof/SN1987A.html

SN1987A
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A

The SN1987A explosion took place 168,000 years ago, because the star
that blew up was 168,000 light-years away (in the Large Magellanic
Cloud galaxy) from where the Earth is now when it blew up. The
religious doctrine of young earth creationism teaches that the
Universe did not exist more than 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. Since in
the case of SN1987A we have literally witnessed an event that took
place about 168,000 years ago, we know that the Universe has been
around substantially longer than just 10,000 years. Therefore, we
know for a fact that young earth creationism is wrong.
==
But nowhere has
religion played so prominent a role as in the century-old quest to
banish or marginalize the teaching of evolution in science classes. Nor
has new genetics research that supports evolutionary theory at the
molecular level dampened antievolution sentiment.1 Requiring
public-school science teachers to teach specific religion-based
alternatives to Darwin's theory of evolution is just as bad, in the
words of political comedian Bill Maher, as requiring obstetricians to
teach medical students the alternative theory that storks deliver babies.

http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ SN_1987A.

Specifically it says this:

SN1987A distance and the speed of light

The three bright rings around SN 1987A are material from
the stellar wind of the progenitor. These rings were
ionized by the ultraviolet flash from the supernova
explosion, and consequently began emitting in various
emission lines. These rings did not "turn on" until
several months after the supernova, and the turn-on
process can be very accurately studied through spectroscopy.
The rings are large enough for their angular size to
be measured accurately: the inner ring is 0.834 arcseconds
in radius. Using the distance light must have traveled
to light up the inner ring as the base of a right angle
triangle, and the angular size as seen from the Earth
for the local angle, one can use basic trigonometry to
calculate the distance to SN1987A, which is about 168,000
light-years.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/ancientproof/SN1987A.html
==
Ken Ham's salary has been bumped up from US$125,000 a year
to US$180,000 according to the lates AiG IRS filing.
==
Intelligent Design is a vehicle for what is
essentially a Fundamentalist ideology, a totalitarian ideology --
dressed in a form intended to make it acceptable to a pluralistic
society. It is a trojan horse intended to attack modern society where
it is politically the most vulnerable, given the current state of our culture.
==
1993 The supreme religious authority of Saudi Arabia,
Sheik Abdel-Aziz Ibn Baaz, issued an edict, or fatwa, declaring that the
world is flat.
==
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/peloza.html Teacher wanted to teach
religion and not evolution in science class.
==
The sun rotating around the earth, in the verse immediately previous:
Ecclesiastes 1:5
The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.
==
The bottom line is this: the ONLY scientists who support ID are those with
religious objections to evolution. I have challenged ID folks in the past
to name 5 scientists in the fields relevant to evolution who 1) support ID,
and 2) do NOT have a religious objection to neo-Darwinian evolution.
No one has even bothered to assert that five such scientists exist.
==
It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so
much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. ... The evidences ... of
Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked
under limitations... John Stuart Mill, Theism, Part II
==
One could make (indeed, people have made) exactly the same argument with
regard to holocaust denial and geocentric astronomy. Free speech does not
mean that all sides get to be heard (at least not in the classroom); you
can believe you've built a perpetual-motion machine in your basement, but
the physics deparment at you local high school doesn't need to give you
equal time to rebut its presentation on the laws of thermodynamics. You
can believe that the pyramids were built by Martians, but that doesn't
oblige the local history teacher to give you time in class to rebut his
statements on Egyptian civilization.
==
Johnson wants to do science on the assumption that evidence doesn't count if it
contradicts crucial tenets of theology. Behe argues that irreducibly
complex structures can't evolve, ignoring entirely the possibility
(discussed decades before his book was written) that components in
redundantly complex systems could be modified (to improve at some function
while losing others) or deleted, rather than simply components added and
never thereafter altered. Dembski argues that one can reliably diagnose
design, if one can rule out all possible nonintelligent causes, both known
and unknown (this is perhaps true, but it seems rather impossible in
practice, and Dembski in practice settles for assuming that if Darwinian
accounts for certain structures have not been worked out, no naturalistic
account is possible).
==
As for the pastor, after four days of listening to science experts
dismantling the case for intelligent design, he was unimpressed. They're
babblers, said the pastor, the Rev. Jim Grove, who leads a 40-member
independent Baptist church outside of Dover, PA. The more Ph.D.'s you get, it
seems like the further away from God you get. (NY Times, 10-2-05)
==
The Scripture plainly teaches that the sun and the stars revolve around a
fixed earth. They are out there making the following statements:
1. Heliocentrism is directly contrary to Scripture, if it is true, Scripture
can not be trusted. And if you can't trust it when it teaches geocentrism,
then why would you trust it for the Gospels?
2. A belief in heliocentrism is simply accepting Man's fallible science over
God's Word. It shows a lack of faith and a lack of trust in God. It is
compromising with the World in order to accommodate man's fallible
scientific understanding.
3. The scientific belief in heliocentrism is based on a bunch of assumptions
and theories and just makes no sense. It takes more faith to believe that
the earth is spinning and revolves around the sun than to accept the Bible!
And then they go on to present a bunch of psuedo-science to support their
propositions, of the type indicated on the sites linked below. They also
provide lots of theological arguments (again, see the sites), they say that
if the earth is not the center of God's Creation as it seems to be in
Genesis 1, then we are just another one of billions of planets! Our sun is
just one of billions in our galaxy alone, much less the universe. This
wholly undermines the clear teaching of Scripture that this planet earth was
the central stage for God's Creation. If we accept these cosmological
assertions by scientists, this will lead to a disbelief in God's role in
creation and Man's special relationship, etc, etc.
They make a persuasive call to all Christians to get back to the truths of
Scripture, to the beliefs that all Christians had before the Copernican
Revolution, which was just Man's fallible attempt to understand things
without God, an atheistic philosophy intent on undermining God's Word!
Now, pretty soon, most Christians in the United States are buying into this.
They are teaching from their pulpits and in their Sunday School classes that
Man's science is wrong, and the sun really revolves around a fixed earth.
That the stars also revolve around the earth, and that this is all confirmed
in Scripture. This becomes a pervasive Christian theological position and
kids are growing up being taught this and that heliocentrism is an atheistic
concept in opposition to God's Word.
Next, they begin to petition to have geocentrism taught in the schools.
They say that their beliefs about origins should have equal time with the idea
that the earth revolves around the sun. They want science classes to teach
that some believes the earth spins, while some believe it is fixed. They
want THEIR scientific propositions taught as well as standard science. And,
amazingly, you begin to see it happen