Pennsylvania Joins the League of Idiots

Another school mandates the teaching of neo-creationism in public school science classes. Woohoo, another group of kids will be completely misled by complete dunderheads. Let me be clear about this. Intelligent Design (ID) is not a theory. A theory must explain things–i.e., what scientists call data which are in turn facts. ID does not do this. ID basically does the following:

  1. We can’t explain how this evolved
  2. God did it…or fuzzy pink bunnies, or magic, or Odin, or aliens, or…whatever you want.

There are at least two problems with the above. First it is a “God of the Gaps” argument. We don’t know right now, so therefore I’ll fill in my favorite explanation. I don’t know what causes thunder, thus Zeus, Thor, or any number of man-made Gods are responsible. I don’t know how the sun rises and sets so a God in a flaming chariot must be riding across the sky. Of course, once an explanation is found that does not hinge on any of these supersitions the supporter/believer of the superstion must retreat.

The second problem is that it treats all hypotheses as having equal weight. This is complete junk science. I have a hypothesis that earth is the center of the universe. Should this be given the same weight, scientifically, as the current theories of astrophysics? No. Should ID be given the same weight as the current theory of evolution? No. Why not? For the reason in the above paragraph: ID explains nothing, it merely rules out certain explanations (supposedly).

Now there are other problems with ID that are rather arcane for many people, and this is why the ID people are using them as it allows them to fool the general public, IMO. For example, how many people want to hear a lengthy discussion of the Frequentist vs. Likelihood approach to statistics? Not many is my guess. But this is precisely the ground that William Dembski bases his claims about ID. It is for many people a MEGO (My Eyes Glazed Over) topic. By doing this and at the same time sounding intelligent, informed and being extremely well educated they manage to convince people that ID is legitimate science when in fact it is precisely the opposite.

“I think it’s a downright fraud to perpetrate on the students of this district, to portray one theory over and over,” said Buckingham. “What we wanted was a balanced presentation.”

That this man sits on the board of education is a slap in the face to the students under his care. Why not mandate a balanced view for the flat earth theory, the Ptolemic model of the universe, and alchemy. What, you say the earth is round. Piffle that is just a theory. I haven’t seen the earth as being round. What? Pictures from space? Ha! Everybody knows that is just a secularist conspiracy to keep evangelical Christians down!

Oh if you are a weirdo like me and want to talk about Frequentist vs. Likelihood statistics you can do so here.

For more on the bogus nature of intelligent design and the deceptions of creationist (creationism) go here and here.

Update: Just thought a quick word about people’s beliefs would be a good idea. I personally don’t care what a person believes in in regards to evolution, abiogensis and religion. I think that is up to each individual. You want to believe in a young earth, fine go right ahead. However, I have a very serious issue when somebody wants to drag their religious dogma into a public school science classroom. Dogma is the antithesis of science and as such has no business being in science classrooms. If you want your children to know about intelligent design, then go buy the books and teach them yourself, but please keep your religious views from the classroom.

FILED UNDER: Education, Religion, Science & Technology, , , ,
Steve Verdon
About Steve Verdon
Steve has a B.A. in Economics from the University of California, Los Angeles and attended graduate school at The George Washington University, leaving school shortly before staring work on his dissertation when his first child was born. He works in the energy industry and prior to that worked at the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Division of Price Index and Number Research. He joined the staff at OTB in November 2004.


  1. Tig says:

    My personal belief is that the biggest problem between the Creationism and Evolutionism theories is how one figures out how long the day was that was described in the Book of Genesis. The actual event described in Day One is very close to the Big Bang Theory. If one determines that each day described in Genesis is as long as a million years or so on the planet Earth, you can easily correlate both theories so that it is easy to understand how evolution fit into God’s plan.

    The second step in such, however, is to also remember that the first two books of the Bible were written by Moses or at least at his direction. While there are many who say that God directed him what to put down, there is too much of it that sounds like it was passed down from generation to generation by mouth, there is a very good reason to believe that the real explanation of how God actually created the universe, Earth and life on Earth was a bit more complicated than Moses and his followers were capable of understanding. As such, whether suggested by God or not, it is fair to assume that the terms were simplified to such a degree that it was actually possible for humans of that time to believe.

    Now, having said all of the above, I easily believe there is some credence behind the ID theory due to two very specific matters – the origins of which seem to have no easy scientific explanation: DNA and the immutable laws of physics.

  2. McGehee says:

    I’ll just mention here that it never fails to strike me as remarkable how hostile people get when alternatives are offered to the package that is normally presented as “the theory of evolution” — it’s almost always the kind of censure one would expect from the Inquisition that forced Galileo to recant his claim that the earth revolves around the sun.

  3. Meezer says:

    I have been an avid science “amateur” since I was 12. I have seen so many *facts* debunked that I finally stopped keeping a journal of them. The sonorous, quelling, “We scientists have proved….” has kept on regardless of embarrassing new findings, often in just a few years. I doubt that a child raised in a non-religious home is in any danger of believing in ID. On the other hand, here is a partial list of science being taught in the textbooks and classrooms in 3 area high schools where I substitute teach. [These are all taught as absolute, revealed truth; not theories]
    1) Global warming is a fact and we are all going to die.
    2) Humans (*Americans*) cause global warming.
    3) Nuclear energy is BAD,BAD,BAD.
    4) The current food pyramid is the final, last word in nutrition – ever!
    5) Einstein was wrong (and his wife did all the math, thought up the ideas, and deserves all the credit anyway).
    6) Anything you do to reduce polution in your immediate area is good, regardless of larger issues and costs, even to the environment itself.
    (These are three high schols in a fairly rural area of Indiana, by the way, not Los Angeles.)

    Note: I am NOT in favor of teaching ID in schools. But if we’re going to talk about teaching science as opposed to dogma, I don’t think that Christians are the only ones to point a finger at, or indeed, the main culprits. After all, they only care about ONE theory, not miriads.

  4. anon says:

    If you teach only evolution in schools, then are you willing to also teach the following:

    – It is a hypothesis, not a theory – theories can be tested
    – It keeps needing updating as new evidence is unearthed, showing that it has some problems and some holes (remember the dwarf unearthed last month?)
    – It hasn’t been successfully tested (we have had fast reproducing organisms with millions of generations in the lab and haven’t yet artificially produced a new species – only variation within a species)
    – Science is sometimes wrong

    Any argument so far?

    As Kuhn would point out, accepted scientific theories – or paradigms – are accepted as fact, but that doesn’t mean they’re right. Maybe a “paradigm shift” won’t happen with evolution, but at least agree that acceptance of any unproven scientific theory as fact – not just evolution – requires a leap of faith.

    Then there is the issue of you bitching about schools your own children don’t attend in a state you don’t live in, but that is another issue.

  5. keith taylor says:

    When the day has been long and the night has been hard I often find it difficult to avoid lapsing into an attitude that may be construed by many as rampantly anti-American, in that I watch in disbelief as Americans – advanced, educated, westerners, argue the merits of religious dogma masquerading as science. Nowhere else in the western world is ID put forth in educational establishments as scientific fact, due to the fact that, not to put too fine a point on it, it’s stupid. I hate to say it, but I look at those who believe in it with a little pity.

  6. Anjin-San says:

    Why not offer some sort of general religon class that teaches Christian, Jewish, Buhddist, & Muslim belief systems? Just put the information out there, don’t try and convert anyone or push any specific way of looking at the universe (including secular humanist) above the other.

    Give kids information & let them try and find the answers that work for them.

  7. keith taylor says:

    When I was in secondary school we had 2 hours of religious education every week. The teacher was Christian, but we covered all the major religions, as well as several touchy subjects such as euthanasia and abortion. All of the lessons were given not as fact but as opinions (i.e. Muslims believe… Christians believe…etc.) So, over 5 years we had about 400 hours religious education, presenting a broadly balanced (as much as is possible) view of each faith.

  8. keith taylor says:

    p.s. Is this kind of religious education not typical? I always assumed everyone got it.

  9. Steve says:


    The Laws of physics argument has been debunked so often so long ago I’m surprised it sill gets trotted out.


    You’re right, but you have it precisely backwards. ID offers no explanation and science demands an explanation. Trying to pass of the former as the latter is tantamount to what the Chuch did back when with Galileo.


    Two points.

    1. Evolution is a fact.

    Organisms change over time. How do we know this? Because the genetic material for organisms mutates over time. That is a fact.

    Thus, the data for global warming are facts. Interpreting those facts is theorizing. The data maybe consistent with warming or not. Confusing facts and theories is a creationist dodge. Even the ID theorists do not deny that organisms evolve.


    The theory of evolution has been tested. Fruit fly experiments, the resistance to pesticides by various insects, and the resistance to certain anti-biotics by bacteria.

    This idea that it hasn’t been tested is false.

    As Kuhn would point out, accepted scientific theories – or paradigms – are accepted as fact, but that doesn’t mean they’re right.

    You are conflating the issue here. The observations of genetic mutation are facts.

    These are all examples of Creationist “dodges”. Saying it hasn’t been tested/observed: it has. Saying it is dogmatic: talk about the pot calling the kettle black. That it is only a theory: an obvious attempt to confuse people.

    Evolution is a fact.

    The current theory explaining the facts (i.e., evolution) is “just” a theory. However, it is the dominant theory. That means it has so much explanatory power right now that no other theory comes close. ID is NOT a theory, but a logically flawed attempt to smuggle in the God of the Gaps type of argument into a science course.

    Its funny. Years ago when ID first made its appearance many proponents pointed to the lack of peer reviewed science for certain things a support. Now years, yearsre virtually no peer reviewed publications mentioning ID…save one which article which is highly critical of ID. Yet people still trot out these old dodges time and time again.

  10. Mel McDowell says:

    If your mind is not closed to serious inquiry by your adherence to the religion of evolution and you want to see what explanations creationism can provide, I invite you to investigate the resources at By the way, have you become a liberal? I see you are calling those you disagree with idiots.

  11. Tig says:

    Jeez, Steve, does it hurt when you take a crap? You definitely got your ass all outta shape over nothin’, far as I could see. Take a hot bath and calm down.

  12. Just Me says:

    I wasn’t aware that you all held such utter disdain for people of faith. I wonder if it occured to you that Christians would take offense at your comparing the God we believe in to “pink bunnies” and “Odin”? Perhaps you don’t care one way or another…..
    I do believe it is possible to make your point without insult. Since you decided that insult was necessary, I won’t be wasting my time reading here anymore. It really is a shame. I enjoyed the political insight very much. C’est la vie…..

  13. brunilda says:

    Evolutionary theory is a theory (tautology) and as such, it is fallible. It may be the case, and one should certainly hope so, that it is wrong. If one didn’t hope so, it would be pretty sad, we would never learn anything new.
    However, that doesn’t mean that since it may not be true, anything is an option.
    ID is certainly NOT AN OPTION, at least within science. Mind you, I am not calling religious belief “anything”, or God a “pink rabbit” (although Odin was a God, and so Just Me’s complaining about the use of Odin and putting it at the same level with the use of the pink rabbit shows how little respect he/she may have for other religions). It is just that ID shouldn’t be taught as representing a particular method of inquiry called “science”. It would be like teaching mathematics as a representative of a class of religious beliefs. ID should be taught in a Religion class, not a science class.

  14. brunilda says:

    And, Meezer, science is all about debunking explanations of facts. Have you ever read Karl Popper? You shouldn’t feel “special” because you realized that scientists are wrong a lot of the time…

  15. libs4lunch says:

    Oh the wishful thinking of evolution proponents. You feel the need to say that everything around you “just happened” and that evolution is a “fact”.

    Facts can be proven.
    Evolution can not.

    It is simply a hypothesis that came from somebody’s head who had a hard time believing there was anything greater than man.

    The hypothesis breaks down very easily when it is tested against the 2cnd Law of Thermodynamics.

    All things will move from a state of organization to a state of unorganization.

    This makes it very hard to promote a theory that a primordial pool of goo somehow managed to upgrade itself into proteins, DNA, and other wonderful biological components.

    Then, all on its own, it grew hands, arms, wings, whatever and formed the multiple species we now know of.

    So, just look around you and see the wonderful result of Intelligence at work. It is awe inspiring and simply amazing and beautiful.

  16. brunilda says:


    Funny you should be using the Laws of Thermodynamics to prove your point about ID: I guess at least some of science, then, is untouchable to you. You seem to forget that those laws were also created by men who have a “hard time believing there was anything greater than man” (I happen not to have a hard time believing so, just believing in religions to tell us what that is, but I digress…). What you’ve just offered is an example of a very well known fallacy called “Special Pleading”. You assume there is a difference between a human-made theory, Evolutionary Theory, and another human-made theory, which is Thermodynamics. Fallibility would apply to the first, but not to the second. This, as do all Special Pleading fallacies, violates the Principle of Relevant Difference. Too bad for you and your argument, because it stomped me for 300 milliseconds.
    Once again, I don’t want to argue against religion per se, so don’t take it personally, but when it comes to scientific thinking, religion is outside of that league, just a science has little to tell you about faith.
    On the point that Evolution can’t be proven: “Evolution generally refers to any process of change over time. However, in the context of the life sciences, evolution is a change in the genetic makeup of a group—a population of interbreeding individuals within a species. Such a population shares a gene pool and members exhibit a degree of genetic relatedness. Since the emergence of modern genetics in the 1940s, evolution was defined more specifically as a change in the frequency of alleles from one generation to the next. Evolution’s two-stage process involves, first, the production and redistribution of genetic variation (see Differential survival of traits); and, second, natural selection acting on this variation.
    Natural selection (see section below), being so crucial to the modern perspective of evolution, is, therefore, often infused with the word evolution. Hence evolution is used as shorthand for the modern theory of evolution of species based upon Darwin’s theory of natural selection. This theory states that all species today are the result of an extensive process of evolution that began several billion years ago with simple single-celled organisms. Thus, evolution via natural selection accounts for the great diversity of life, extinct and extant.” (Wikipedia) Read the first paragraph carefully. Are you still going to tell me that Evolution is not a fact of life??? Evolution and Natural Selection are different. I am tired to have to repeat this to people. Read your books. Evolution has been proved, although that doesn’t matter in the long run, because proofs, unlike dogma, are fallible. So back to my first posting: I hope Natural Selection is wrong, otherwise it would be sad and boring. But ID is not a sicentific alternative, although you can accept it if it pleases you. It should not be taught in schools under the heading “science”; it can be, under the heading “religion”.

  17. Brandon says:

    The problem with teaching the theory of evolution in public schools is it’s not taught as a theory. Not only can we not test the theory, but there are a lot of holes in it. I don’t have a problem with that, but let’s teach kids that it’s a theory, and that we could be way off-base.

    The alternative doesn’t have to be ID, but the mindset is anything short of proclaiming to Father Darwin our undying allegiance in schools is heresy upon Him.

  18. libs4lunch says:

    Brunhilda, you make much noise but not much sense.

    Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption. This sort of “reasoning” has the following form:

    Person A accepts standard(s) S and applies them to others in circumtance(s) C.
    Person A is in circumstance(s) C.
    Therefore A is exempt from S.

    The person committing Special Pleading is claiming that he is exempt from certain principles or standards yet he provides no good reason for his exemption. That this sort of reasoning is fallacious is shown by the following extreme example:

    Barbara accepts that all murderers should be punished for their crimes.
    Although she murdered Bill, Barbara claims she is an exception because she really would not like going to prison.
    Therefore, the standard of punishing murderers should not be applied to her.

    Now, that takes about 100 ms to determine your rebuttal does not apply.

    I made a reference to the Law of Thermodynamics to show that these two scientific principles are in direct opposition to each other. My circumstances have absolutely no relevance here (or “Relevant Difference” if it makes you happy).

    Tell me then, which law or theory would you like to toss out?

    Also, why would life evolve from one level to a more complex level? Why wouldnt it evolve from something to chaos? And then evolve to non-existence?

    I guess you would be willing to accept a premise that a pile of lumber would eventually evolve into a house. And, many piles would eventually evolve into a subdivision. Then when you see that the houses are designed the same way, you would claim that they all evolved from the same whatever.

    All you would need to do is accept the premise that there was a Builder who took available materials and made it happen.

    That would be using Ockham’s razor. But maybe you have a “Special Pleading” issue with that one too.

    I believe we will just need to agree to disagree here.

  19. Nathan says:

    libs, you are seriously misunderstanding the second law of thermodynamics. While it is certainly true that entropy always increases within a system, the earth and the life on it are not a closed system, but part of a larger system. Within all closed systems, pockets of low entropy can form if offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system. All that being said, entropy is not the same as disorder.

    Brunhilda already brought up that evolution is defined as a change in allele frequencies over time. This has been observed–it fact that it occurs. The next step is of course to say that over a long period of time, these aggregated changes in alleles, selected for through environmental factors, explain the origin of all species on earth. While we haven’t seen a species drastically change form (and we’re not very likely to ever see that given the amount of time that would be needed), we have seen fairly noticeable changes in species due to environmental pressures. Moth coloration and drug resistant bacteria come to mind.

    The thing with this whole debate that gets me is that it shows that the larger problem in our science classes is getting across what science actually is. Science is a method of inquiry–one that has served us pretty well. I’m going to assume that we all know what science is and how it works here, so it is fairly perplexing to me that anyone can so strongly insist that ID is in any way scientific. Talking about pink fluffy bunnies as the designer is very appropriate because it brings to light what the point of ID researchers is–to prove the truth of the biblical account of the origin of life. That’s fine, but let’s be honest about it. Pursuing inquiry that only looks for evidence to bolster an argument is not science; it’s much closer to politics.

    Science need not necessarily be a threat to Christian faith. It seems perfectly possible to me for one to believe in a 7 day creation, a young earth, and evolution (though the latter wouldn’t be one’s explanation for how we got here, but an explanation of a current and future biological process). Similarly, it’s perfectly reasonable to believe that the earth is the center of the universe and that the sun revolves around us (it’s just really, really, really complicates things to do so). All things considered, I’d rather have my schools teaching scientific inquiry than something that partially resembles it.

  20. brunilda says:

    Special Pleading applies to your case. For some reason, the second law of thermodynamics in your posting seems to be an objective truth, to which the property of fallibility and falsifiability that applies to science do not apply.
    Needless to say, I also agree with Nathan’s comments. Libs4lunch’s version of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is simply inaccurate: it is the way people remember it, kind of a shortcut. Life on Earth need not be a closed system and entropy reduction here could be matched with entropy augmentation elsewhere. So which law or theory would I like to toss out? Why, neither 😉
    And Nathan is also right I believe is once again stressing the point that science is A METHOD OF INQUIRY. Saying “it hasn’t been proved so there is a creator” simply does not follow from any scientific method. In particular, I take exception with the use of Occam’s razor. Occam’s razor is a ceteris paribus statement: all other things being equal, the most parsimonious explanation should be preferred (“Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate” or “plurality should not be posited without necessity.”). ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL. Clearly, empirical adequacy is one of those things. ID is not based on any facts, it is based on our inability to explain observed facts to our (or other people’s) satisfaction. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to talk about empirical adequacy there. And something nice about Occam, while we’re at it: “He did argue, however, that natural theology is impossible. Natural theology uses reason alone to understand God, as contrasted with revealed theology which is founded upon scriptural revelations. According to Occam, the idea of God is not established by evident experience or evident reasoning. All we know about God we know from revelation. The foundation of all theology, therefore, is faith. It should be noted that while others might apply the razor to eliminate the entire spiritual world, Ockham did not apply the principle of parsimony to the articles of faith. Had he done so, he might have become a Socinian like John Toland (Christianity not Mysterious, 1696) and pared down the Trinity to a Unity and the dual nature of Christ to a single nature.” (

    My second exception to your use of Occam’s razor is that for you, libs4lunch, it seems more parsimonious to assume “a creator” and “available materials” that we can’t explain. Adding the assumption of a Creator to our model cannot be thought as being an economical solution: Evolution does not posit unobserved mechanisms, although Natural Selection does need “available materials”. ID proponents often criticize Natural Selection in terms of the strangeness and unlikelihood of having life “aggregate” from non-living stuff. Well, the Creator, as you have pointed out, also needs that “non-living stuff” to be available, right? So the only testable difference between ID and Natural Selection is whether non-living forms can aggregate on their own to form life, or whether some entity had to have done it.
    Once again, the relevant point that I think has most people up in arms is the fact that ID could be taught as “science”. I think that ID is not a scientific theory, and I’ll say this again: I don’t mind its being taught, in a religion class, so that people don’t mistake the scientific method of inquiry with an article of faith.
    PS: And yes, a lot of scientists are self-pompous pricks that idolize science and want to be canonized too. But please let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater…

  21. libs4lunch says:

    Nathan and Brunhilda.

    As I said, we will need to agree to disagree.

    I have the advantage of time. Eventually I will be proven to have the accurate view of existence and you will have no choice but to concur. Unfortunately, that will require you to come to the end of your mortal journey here.

    If I go before you do, I would love to be there when that happens. Your expression would be priceless.

    If I recall, Einstein was to have said he looked forward to that event because he could then ask something like, “Ok, just HOW did that work”?

    Until then, think what you will.

  22. brunilda says:


    That was an unnecessarily tasteless posting. You would like to be there when we die to see the expression on our faces? Disgusting.
    On top of that, it betrayes a self-righteousness that is the very opposite of scientific pursuit. I interpret your recourse to such rhetoric as a signal that you’ve run out of arguments, but I would love to be proven wrong on that one.
    And I’ve never begrudged you your freedom to “think what you will.” I guess you haven’t been reading carefully. Of course I can think what I will, although maybe a lot (but not all, thank God) of religious people also want to legislate the way we think.

  23. libs4lunch says:

    Looks like I know where Brunhilda’s goat is tied. Now I got it.

  24. brunilda says:

    What does that mean?? Are you suggesting I have something against religious belief itself?? Well, I am a Catholic, and so is my wife, albeit we are Catholics that are very disappointed at the Catholic Church.
    Or what exactly are you suggesting? Where is my goat tied? Please make your points.
    And stop misspelling my name. I was very patient with that, but I enjoin you now to begin reading carefully.
    You have forgone all argument in favor of ad hominem attacks. It is a shame.

  25. Anjin-San says:

    It is dissapointing to me that so many of the people of faith in this country who are so worked up about this subject seem to be so silent while thousands of devout people of faith in Iraq are slaughtered in a war WE started.

  26. LJD says:

    Try to stick to the subject. Your blather on Iraq is beyond OLD.

  27. Anjin-San says:

    I doubt if the families of the American servicemen in Iraq feel the subject is old.

    BTW LJD, kindly kiss my ass. If you don’t like my posts, ignore them.

  28. brunilda says:

    Yeah, let’s stick to the subject. Let’s not bring up the war in Iraq too or this is going to be an infinite discussion.
    Maybe some proponents of ID would like to comment on how/whether the following specious reasoning applies to their case:
    Looking forward to hear more debate ON THE ISSUES (and not on goats ;-))
    PS: BTW, why is the US the only country who is putting this issue up for debate? What do people in other countries believe?

  29. Anjin-San says:

    Wow the thread police are out in force… maybe the teacher will give you guys a gold star 🙂

  30. brunilda says:

    Ha ha, OK, point taken. First amendment ;-))

  31. SOL says:

    “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”
    –Theodosius Dobzhansky

    “A true scientist would say that nothing in biology makes sense except in
    the light of evidence.”
    –Jonathan Wells, “Icons of Evolution”

    It would be interesting to take local, state and national polls of high-school and college/university students studying evolution, asking two questions:

    In this class: a) is evolution taught as fact or theory? b) do you have the academic freedom to critique evolution?

    Regarding University of Massachussetts professor Lynn Margulis, Michael Behe writes in “Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution” (1996): “At one of her many public talks she asks the molecular biologists in the audience to name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations. Her challenge goes unmet.” (Behe, p. 26).

    In the years since Margulis first asked the question, can biologists _now_ name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the acculumulation of mutations?

    For a research project, students should be asked:

    In the scientific literature, can you find one example of an evolutionary process or mechanism which can be seen to create new functional information at the genetic level? Can you find one reference for any study that has shown that duplicated genes acquired different functions during an experiment or series of experiments?

    For further information:

    “Teaching Evolution–Is There a Better Way?” by Ian Taylor

    “Teaching Origins in Public Schools” by David N. Menton

    Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy?
    Phillip Johnson — William Provine
    Debate at Stanford University (April 30, 1994)

    “Cool Things About Being an Evolutionist”

    If science is a search for truth, no scientific theory should be allowed to freeze into dogma, immune from critical examination and evaluation.

  32. LJD says:

    Once again putting words in my mouth..
    I said YOUR blather on the subject is old, NOT the subject is old. Staying on subject with your blogs is not a violation of your First Amendment. it is simple common courtesy.

    Kissing you ass is an impossibilty, considering it is plastered to your chair, and your head is firmly stuck up in it.

  33. brunilda says:

    Good posting SOL, I am following this with much interest.
    I don’t want to make science impervious to criticism. That is ridiculous – and bad science. ID is just not a scientific alternative. This is not about evolution being “right”. As I said before, I hope it’s not so we can move beyond. But faith-based ID has no place in a science class, because its beliefs are not derived through a scientific methodology (which has been explicitly coded to decide what counts as science and what doesn’t). How does ID help you understand mutation and the fact that organisms evolve to meet environmental challenges, once you find them on Earth (regardless of how they came to be there in the first place)? Not to mention the applications derived from our understanding that organisms change and that they are today different from what they were before (when either God created them or they appear): can ID helps us in that realm. I think ID is an epistemological black box. I don’t see what conclusions, predictions or further research can entertaining ID help you with. That’s why I oppose its being taught in a science class, but I am perfectly fine with its being taught in a religion class.
    Cheers, great comments from y’all

  34. James says:

    You know, I read all of these postings and I have to say. I don’t care what any of you think, and if you think what you think matters you are all wrong. Granted i have an opinion on this matter, but why would I waste my time trying to convince someone who doesn’t want to be convinced. Ya’ll just get off on one upping each other and have yet to change anyone’s mind. Creationism nor macro-evolution can be proven. Noone was there to observe them so they can neither one be science. If you want to to have”faith” in either on of them, fine, do that. In the end we’ll see who’s right. Evolution-hey your were right and now your dead and you can’t appreciate being right. Or you were wrong and your whole life was a waste becasue you didn’t find Jesus. Great. Creation-hey you were right.Wow it’s a good thing you accepted Jesus now you can go to Heaven. Or, you are wrong, but hey you lived your life like there was light at the end of the tunnel and died happy. I guess it’s a win-win for you. So go ahead and argue. You people need a life. Seriously. NO ONE CARES.

  35. Mark J says:

    For someone who doesn’t care, you sure do have some strong feelings on the matter.

    Kidding… kidding…

  36. Hehehe, what’s ever, I am gona be out! I am gona going to sleep!