Now that the State Board of Education has adopted new science curriculum standards, publishers can write their textbooks for the Texas adoption in 2011. The state board’s creationists will use the flawed standards they approved as a weapon to force publishers into dumbing down instruction on evolution. To get a sense of some of the nonsense they will demand to see in the textbooks, check out board chairman Don McLeroy’s Web site.
Chairman McLeroy, who led the charge during the standards debate to weaken instruction on evolution, includes commentary about science and other topics on his Web site. Evolution, however, is a primary target there.
One part of the site includes a presentation he made during the heated state board debate over proposed new biology textbooks in 2003. The presentation, dated September 8 of that year, is called “Historical Reality.” That heading is followed by two statements:
Copernicus’ “Heliocentric” Hypothesis–Yes
Darwin’s “Common Descent” Hypothesis–NO
He writes:
Evolutionists are quick to point out that the hypothesis of “descent with modification from a common ancestor” (hereafter referred to simply as “common descent”) is as much a historical reality as the hypothesis of “heliocentricity.”
We suppose we should be grateful that the chairman of the board that directs what more than 4.6 million Texas schoolchildren learn accepts the fact that Earth revolves around the sun. (The folks at www.fixedearth.com will be disappointed.) Unfortunately, the chairman rejects evolution, which mainstream science considers just as factual and supported by sound, overwhelming evidence.
So what will be his position in the 2011 adoption? Surely the same as in 2003:
This analysis will demonstrate that “common descent” has not been conclusively demonstrated to be true and therefore can not be described as “factual” in our textbooks.
Therefore, any book that represents “common descent” as a fact and not a hypothesis should be rejected as factually incorrect.
Also, any good book will present at least some of the identified weaknesses raised in this analysis.
The rest of the section is an argument showing why “heliocentricity” is a good theory, while “common descent” is not. It’s a masterful exercise in quote mining and junk science. He concludes:
The entire crux of the evolution debate hinges on whether “descent from a common ancestor,” like the heliocentric theory of Copernicus, is accepted as a historical reality, or as only a hypothesis.
This analysis has argued that it is only a hypothesis, and a shaky one at that.
Therefore,
· I urge board members to carefully consider the argument of this analysis and in spite of the overwhelming scientific experts’ opinions, consider what the overwhelming scientific evidence demonstrates, and insist that “common descent” be portrayed as a hypothesis in the textbooks.
· I also urge the board to reject any book that portrays descent with modification from a common ancestor as a fact.
· I also appeal to the publishers to incorporate in the texts the many reasons for the distinction.
Needless to say, the 2011 science textbook adoption in Texas will be a train wreck.
To get fuller idea of what our state board chairman thinks about education issues, surf around on his Web site a bit. One long essay, dated February 6, 2005, appears to be from a church lecture and the basis for a similar lecture in July of the same year. An excerpt:
Darwinian evolution and ID stand in a complete antithesis; ID requires a designing influence to account for all the complexity of life, whereas the Darwinian Theory common descent claims that life spontaneously arose all by itself.
And why is intelligent design considered a “big tent”? It is because anyone opposed to naturalism is welcomed into the movement. All of us, progressive creationists, recent creationists, old earthers, and young earthers are welcomed in this tent. Intelligent design here at Grace Bible Church is a smaller tent than the intelligent design movement itself. We are all biblical literalists and believe the Bible to be inerrant. It is good to remember that the intelligent design movement is a bigger tent. There is no reason to attack one another over our disagreements, though we should rigorously examine our Bible, and see how our views fit the Scriptures and how coherent a creation story they tell. Remember, naturalism is the main target.
But this debate hasn’t really been about religion, right?
Somebody should tell the lawmakers that we’re going to do this again in 2011, unless they fix the SBOE. It isn’t over.
Next time it will be even stinkier because Texas will be requiring that creationist rhetoric appear in textbooks. It won’t be abstract words next time. It will be creationism.
It will be scientist-after-scientist decrying the SBOE, and the SBOE gleefully thumbing their noses.
Texas is in for a HUGE embarrassment. Last week was nothing.
I believe it’s time to introduce a bill in the legislature requiring Sunday schools teach evolution as an alternative “religious” view – or lose their tax-exempt status.
How many times do I have to point out that no school system in the world is required to use Texas SBOE-approved textbooks? Also, the Texas SBOE has no control over the questions that are asked on College Board subject tests.
TFN Says:
–But this debate hasn’t really been about religion, right?–
A lot of people question Darwinism because of reasons other than religion. Darwinists have been misusing the Constitution’s establishment clause to seek censorship of criticisms of Darwinism. The Founders never foresaw the establishment clause being used in this way.
Joe Lapp Says:
–Texas is in for a HUGE embarrassment. Last week was nothing.–
Are you a Texan? I am a Californian, and if someone said that California did something embarrassing, I would tell that person to go to hell.
You’re an embarrassment.
MCLEROY, DUNBAR, LEO EXPLAINED
Sometimes one wishes that they could have written an article themselves—only to find that someone else has beaten them to the punch. The article at the URL below is very good. Ben has pointed out many times that Larry, Science-Minded, and certain members of the Texas SBOE are in the GRIP OF SATAN. This article pretty much explains (historically) how they got stuffed into this particular piece of luggage without them even knowing it and by whom they were being stuffed. It pretty much demonstrates that the average Christian-Neofundamentalist sitting in his front porch swing is little more than an unwitting stooge being led around on a leash by people who are fundamentally Non-Christian. It is a little long article, but I can guarantee you that the ride will be worth your time. It is a 2004 article written by Ernest Partridge Ph.D. (University of Utah 1976):
http://www.crisispapers.org/essays/jesus-vote.htm
It appears the Larry is beginning to unravel. I blame Satan.
Uh, “that” not “the”
Larry,
Would you give examples of your claim that, “Darwinists have been misusing the Constitution’s establishment clause to seek censorship of criticisms of Darwinism?” When and how?
Larry Farfarman, you misstate reality. The fixed costs of producing any new text book are so large that it’s not economic to put out a creationist biology text book for Texas and a reality based biology text book for the rest of the country. No publisher, not even the largest ones, can afford to invest the millions of dollars required to produce two text books, one for Texas and one for the rest of the country. The net effect is that what Texas wants, the rest of the country gets. It’s called the dumbing down of America. It affects all disciplines. And it starts in Texas.
Also given the price of text books, virtually every school district in Texas buys its text books with state funds. Almost no district has the funds sitting around to buy books that state has not “adopted” and for which the state will not pay. So as a practical matter, if the districts want or need new text books, they have to buy state adopted books. That’s as close to compulsion as one can get.
As for objectors to evolution having religious roots. Scratch 99.9% of ID or creationist advocates, and fundamentalist religious views ooze to the surface. Rare is the person who takes issue with evolution who doesn’t also hold strong fundamentalist religious views. The two go hand in hand. The exceptions are so rare as to prove the rule. And they are virtually always cantankerous blowhards. Sound familiar?
And as a native Texan, I agree with Joe Lapp: Texas, at least its State Board of Education, is an embarrassment.
b. j. edwards Says:
–Larry,
Would you give examples of your claim that, “Darwinists have been misusing the Constitution’s establishment clause to seek censorship of criticisms of Darwinism?”–
It is obvious. Darwinists are using the establishment clause not just to attack biblical creationism but are also using it to attack scientific and pseudoscientific criticisms of evolution. Darwinists are charging that various terms — e.g., “strengths and weaknesses,” analyze and evaluate,” and “theory” — are “code words” for teaching creationism.
–I believe it’s time to introduce a bill in the legislature requiring Sunday schools teach evolution as an alternative “religious” view – or lose their tax-exempt status. —
Why? The courts have not even allowed evolution-disclaimer statements in the public schools. The courts banned evolution-disclaimer statements in three decisions: Kitzmiller v. Dover, Selman v. Cobb County, and Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish. (BTW, Kitzmiller was not appealed and the courts came close to reversing Selman and Freiler on appeal). So why in the hell should Sunday schools teach evolution?
And how would you enforce such a requirement in Sunday schools? How many hours should Sunday school teachers spend teaching evolution? Or would just a disclaimer statement — which is already more than the courts have allowed in public schools — be OK? And how many Sunday school teachers are qualified to teach evolution? Duh.
I believe it’s time you got a brain.
Charles moans,
–Larry, Science-Minded, and certain members of the Texas SBOE are in the GRIP OF SATAN . . . . the average Christian-Neofundamentalist sitting in his front porch swing is little more than an unwitting stooge being led around on a leash by people who are fundamentally Non-Christian. —
My ideas about coevolution are entirely my own — I didn’t get them from somewhere else. See —
http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2009/01/summary-of-thoughts-about-co-evolution.html
Okay Larry,
You keep stating that no one has to use Texas’ textbooks and you’ve used the example of the Miller and Levine biology text, claiming that there are three versions: Cali, Texas & the rest of us. Surf on over to Amazon…no note there as to three versions. Wait! Let’s go direct to the publisher….nope. No note there either. I know! Let’s go to Miller’s website! Surely the author makes mention of different version! Oh noes! Nothing there either…
So show me, Mr. I’m from Missouri – what secret code unlocks the three different versions?
There is a Texas edition of Miller and Levine’s Biology. However, the only thing that makes it different is that it is fully integrated into the TAKS exam; every chapter ends with TAKS questions. So the purpose of having a Texas edition is not to water down and misrepresent evolution, but to bring it in line with a statewide test. This is of course not problematic from a scientific standpoint (I wouldn’t expect Miller and Levine to produce substandard texts). The “Dragonfly” edition was, to quote the site, “the hands-down winner in the 2004 Biology Textbook Adoption,” so hopefully that tend will continue. I trust the vigilance of TFN and others to alert the rest of us if that is not the case.
Publishers routinely write “Texas editions” of their textbooks (and “California editions,” “Florida editions,” and on and on). Usually, those editions include content specific to a state’s assessment program (such as TAKS, for Texas) as well as correlations to a particular state’s curriculum standards. Very often, the core content is essentially the same. Because of advances in technology, however, it has become easier (a bit less costly) for publishers to write textbooks with (some) different content for a particular state.
In the case of science, it’s possible that other states will see the Texas editions as poison and demand that publishers sell them textbooks that don’t include junk science. They will be helped by the strong possibility that California may be purchasing new science textbooks shortly after the Texas adoption. So the major textbook publishers — which are under considerable financial pressure right now — have a tough choice. Should they bother to publish a textbook for a state even as large as Texas that will have to be changed for other markets? Is it worth the cost? We have already seen publishers bypass Texas in other large adoptions. Two major publishers failed to submit a health textbook in 2004, for example. The 1994-95 health textbook adoption in Texas had been a political and financial nightmare, with religious conservatives on the board demanding hundreds of changes (removing information on contraception, dropping diagrams of breast self-exams for cancer, changing photos of women in the working world, etc.). One publisher in 1995 simply withdrew its health textbook from consideration rather than spend the money making changes demanded by state board members.
None of this is good for Texas students. If the current ideological balance on the state board doesn’t change, it’s increasingly likely that students in this state will be handicapped with junk science in their 21st-century classrooms. Not good at all.
Regarding Larry’s repeated assertion that Texas school districts can purchase textbooks not on the state’s official adoption list (and thereby avoid the junk science “poison” editions for Texas), he’s technically correct. But they won’t. The Texas Education Agency estimates the cost of science textbooks (K-12) in the 2011-12 adoption will be nearly $600 million. The unit cost (cost per student textbook, with ancillary materials) will hover in the $100 range. Districts simply won’t spend local tax dollars to cover those costs when they can get state dollars instead. From a financial point of view, that would be stupid. Larry can argue until he’s blue in the face about stretching the cost out and other nonsense, but he’s simply wrong here. They won’t buy textbooks on their own (with only a few exceptions, and then mostly for ancillary instructional materials). In the end, the real losers in all this will be an entire generation of Texas kids forced to learn junk science if the State Board of Education is dominated by ideologues during the 2011 textbook adoption.
I think Larry might be for real about objecting to what he calls “Darwinism” on, what he at least believes, are strictly scientific grounds. Larry’s brother Dave is a Catholic. I do not know if his brother was raised Catholic or became one later in life, but my best guess is raised, which would mean that Larry was raised Catholic too. It is hard to find fundamentalist Catholics, although there definitely are some out there—like maybe Mel Gibson. So, for now at least, I will buy into the notion that Larry is being straight up about his objections to Darwinism being nonreligious—for now at least. I cannot give SscienceMinded that benefit because of some religious “Freudian slips—or panties if you prefer) that he has made here over the past several weeks. Also, just because Larry’s objections are based on what he thinks is science, I am not about to buy into any of it.
Larry wrote….
“It is obvious. Darwinists are using the establishment clause not just to attack biblical creationism but are also using it to attack scientific and pseudoscientific criticisms of evolution.”
Sorry, Larry, but if you can’t back up your claim with actual evidence, then you are just blowing hot air.
“Why? The courts have not even allowed evolution-disclaimer statements in the public schools… I believe it’s time you got a brain.”
My humorous remark flew right over your head. Or perhaps the point really struck home. In any case, you have shown that you can’t be taken seriously.
Message to TFN:
I have been thinking about the textbook issue and what might happen—being as how I am something of a discerning person. The first fight will be as to whether “opposition to common descent” or other such garbage actually gets into the biology textbooks. We cannot necessarily predict the outcome of that now, but based on what we saw a couple of weeks ago, simple and straight-up inclusion or exclusion may not be where this thing lands. Most likely, there will be some sort of compromise that gets both sides just a little bit of what they want on content. However, I think the real area for compromise will focus on TEXTBOOK PACKAGING. What do I mean by that?
Let us pretend that the biology textbook will be about 1000 pages long. The Christian Neo-Fundamentalists will push to have their compromised creation science mumbo-jumbo in the middle of the book—say on page 500. By putting it in the middle of the book, it forces every child and every parent to have it in the book—no matter what—which may ensure that it gets read. Moreover, as all except Larry have pointed out here, school systems all over the nation will likely end up having to buy that textbook. McLeroy and company know that—and they are hoping and praying for it. They will fight like “sentenced demons” to make sure it is PRINTED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BOOK because they will see that as their key opportunity to introduce their creation science ideas into every school system in the nation. Then the Texas SBOE will be a threat to not only science—but the whole nation. This is how people filled with pride make a name for themselves in the Christian Neo-Fundamentalist community. When the compromising starts, we must give it everything we have to make sure that the mumbo-jumbo does not end up in the middle of a textbook.
I have noticed that Ms. Tincy Miller is a balanced and sensible individual with a good and solid head on her shoulders—maybe like Dwight Eisenhower or Barry Goldwater. She is not going to put up with this crap, and she is going to see what I am about to offer up as a possible compromise way out in 2011 that would allow nearly everyone to win—except for the Terri Leo crowd.
The answer is to insert whatever watered-down creation science BS McLeroy ends up with into a WORKBOOK that goes with the textbook. If you were born in the 1950s like me, you know what those are. They are paperback activity/learning centers with exercises/questions/creative projects/whatever. In those days long ago, nearly every K-12 textbook in the United States had some sort of published workbook with the same title as the book (except it said workbook too). The interesting thing is that the school did not buy the workbook very often in those days—just the textbook itself. The parents had to buy the workbook at a local supplying bookstore (along with the notebook paper, pencils, etc.)—and then only if the child’s teacher decided to actually use the workbook. Do you see the workbook advantages here folks? Let me lay them out for you:
1) A competent science teacher with an actual brain can use the creation-science-free textbook but coveniently ignore the workbook with the creation science mumbo-jumbo in it.
2) Parents can actually tell individual school systems and teachers, “You can use the textbook. I am okay with that. You use that workbook, and I am calling the ACLU, AU, and my attorney.”
3) Because the textbook is on its own—separate from the book—we can also get a determination as to whether it is legal for a tax-supported public school system to force a parent to buy religious literature at a local bookstore, especially religious literature that is contrary to their face. Here that UT law students!!!??? Here is a chance to make a name for yourself right out of law school. I’d start working on this oe right now.
4) If parents are forced to buy it at least temporarily—but teachers are uwilling to use it— the parents can use the pages of the workbook as reserve toilet paper on family camping trips—which would be a fitting end to a piece of printed trash like this.
5) It gives every school system and every textbook company in the nation “A WAY OUT.” They do not have to put creation science crap into their textbooks. They put it in the workbook ONLY. Check that—ONLY. Sensible school systems all over the nation can then tell the biology textbook companies, “Hey, send us 10,000 copies of your biology textbook. No, we do not want the workbook. You can keep it.” Cool, huh?
5) Quarantining the creation science mumbo-jumb to a workbook makes it easier to kill. It is the same strategy that lion pride use to kill zebra. Identify a weak individual and cut them out from the herd so they face the lions all alone. Can you say Darwin?
6) The school systems and administrators in Texas (and elsewhere) who do decide to order the workbook and actually use it end up in federal court, cost their school systems millions of dollars, and get fired to boot. And as we know already from past episodes, the elected local or state school board members who allowed the travesty to happen get thrown out of office in the next election. Can you say, “NATURAL SELECTION”?
Sounds like a plan to me.
TFN: I wonder if there is benefit in broadcasting how textbook publishers are abandoning Texas. Accompany that broadcast with stories about removing mention of condoms, breast exam drawings, and women carrying suitcases, and we could generate national interest. National ridicule is the only thing that’s going to drive the legislature to castrate the SBOE. The Texas constituency is too uneducated to care.
Charles: Won’t the SBOE just reject textbooks that don’t have creationism in them, regardless of whether there are accompanying workbooks? Or maybe you’re suggesting that if we have a pro-science majority on the board, they might be able to steer your solution to satisfy the TEKS.
Message to TFN:
Drat the typos. Let me try that again:
I have been thinking about the textbook issue and what might happen—being as how I am something of a discerning person. The first fight will be as to whether “opposition to common descent” or other such garbage actually gets into the biology textbooks. We cannot necessarily predict the outcome of that now, but based on what we saw a couple of weeks ago, simple and straight-up inclusion or exclusion may not be where this thing lands. Most likely, there will be some sort of compromise that gets both sides just a little bit of what they want on content. However, I think the real area for compromise will focus on TEXTBOOK PACKAGING. What do I mean by that?
Let us pretend that the biology textbook will be about 1000 pages long. The Christian Neo-Fundamentalists will push to have their compromised creation science mumbo-jumbo in the middle of the book—say on page 500. By putting it in the middle of the book, it forces every child and every parent to have it in the book—no matter what—which may ensure that it gets read. Moreover, as all except Larry have pointed out here, school systems all over the nation will likely end up having to buy that textbook. McLeroy and company know that—and they are hoping and praying for it. They will fight like “sentenced demons” to make sure it is PRINTED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BOOK because they will see that as their key opportunity to introduce their creation science ideas into every school system in the nation. Then the Texas SBOE will be a threat not only to science—but to the whole nation. This is how people filled with “Biblical pride” make a name for themselves in the Christian Neo-Fundamentalist community. So, when the compromising starts, TFN must give it everything it has to make sure that the mumbo-jumbo DOES NOT end up in the middle of a 1000-page textbook.
I have noticed that Ms. Tincy Miller is a balanced and sensible individual with a good and solid head on her shoulders—maybe like Dwight Eisenhower or Barry Goldwater. She is not going to put up with this crap, and she is going to see what I am about to offer up as a possible compromise way out in 2011 that would allow nearly everyone to win—except for the Terri Leo crowd.
The answer is to insert whatever watered-down creation science BS McLeroy ends up with into a WORKBOOK that goes with the textbook. If you were born in the 1950s like me, you know what workbooks are. They are paperback activity/learning centers with exercises/questions/creative projects/whatever. In those days long ago, nearly every K-12 textbook in the United States had some sort of published workbook with the same title as the main textbook (except it said “workbook” on it). The interesting thing is that the school systems did not buy the workbooks very often in those days—just the textbook itself. The parents had to buy the workbook themselves at a local school supply store (along with the notebook paper, pencils, erasers, etc.)—and then ONLY if the child’s teacher decided to actually use the workbook. The key here is for TFN and sensible members of the Texas SBOE to allow the workbook to be bought separately by parents when it is used, which is true to K-12 school tradition throughout the nation. Do you see the workbook advantages here folks? Let me lay them out for you:
1) A competent science teacher with an actual brain can use the creation-science-free textbook—but conveniently ignore the workbook with the creation science mumbo-jumbo in it. Just refuse to use it and do not ask parents to buy it.
2) Parents can actually tell individual school systems, administrators, and teachers, “You can use that biology textbook. I am okay with that. You use that workbook, and I am calling the ACLU, AU, and my attorney.” That will get their attention.
3) Because the textbook is on its own—separate from the workbook—we can also get a determination as to whether it is legal for a tax-supported public school system TO FORCE a parent to buy a workbook (that is really religious literature) at their local bookstore, especially religious literature that is contrary to their faith. Here that UT law students!!!??? Here is a chance to make a name for yourself right out of law school. I’d start working on this one right now if I were you.
4) If parents are forced to buy it at least temporarily—but teachers are uwilling to use it— the parents can use the pages of the workbook as reserve toilet paper on family camping trips—which would be a fitting end to a piece of printed trash like this.
5) It gives every school system and every textbook company in the nation “A WAY OUT.” They do not have to put creation science crap into their textbooks, which will be sold to every school system in the nation. They put it in the workbook ONLY. Check that—ONLY. Sensible school systems all over the nation can then tell the biology textbook companies, “Hey, send us 10,000 copies of your biology textbook. No, we DO NOT want that silly workbook with the creation science crap in it. You can keep it.” Because the workbooks are paperbacks printed on cheap paper, printing a limited number for weirdo school systems will not be a big financial burden on the textbook publishers. Cool, huh?
5) Quarantining the creation science mumbo-jumb to a workbook makes it much easier to kill. It is the same strategy that female lion hunting parties use to kill zebra and wildebeasts. Identify a weak individual and cut them out from the herd so they face the lionesses all alone. Can you say Nala? Can you say Darwin?
6) The weirdo school systems and administrators in Texas (and elsewhere) who do decide to order the workbook and actually use it end up in federal court, cost their school systems millions of dollars, and get fired to boot. And as we know already from past episodes, the elected local or state school board members who allowed the travesty to happen get thrown out of office in the next election. Can you say, “NATURAL SELECTION”?
7) When the courts finally do impale the workbook on a rusty rod, it will be no real loss to the book publishers. They will still have their creation-science-free textbooks to sell—and a very small loss to write off for the workbooks.
This is a compromise where nearly everyone wins. The only losers are the Christian Neo-Fundamentalists on the Texas SBOE and any school system dumb enough to introduce religion masquerading as science into their science classrooms. And hey, some lucky family in Glacier National Park will have some spare toilet paper to use in an emergency—courtesy of some workbook publisher and the Great State of Texas.
Are you listening Ms. Tincy Miller? I like you. I really do. You should think about running for Governor of Texas. I think you may have “the right stuff” for it.
BTW, Dr. McLeroy, Copernicus’ heliocentrism is actually false. Two reasons:
(1) Our sun isn’t the center of the universe, as Copernicus posited.
(2) The planets orbit the sun in ellipses, not circles, where the sun is at a focus of each ellipse.
Nothing is simple in science — unless of course it’s creation science.
TFN Says (April 4, 2009 at 5:30 pm) —
–Publishers routinely write “Texas editions” of their textbooks (and “California editions,” “Florida editions,” and on and on).–
I found not only regular, Texas, California, and Florida editions of “Biology” by Miller and Levine, but I also found a North Carolina edition:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/NorthCarolina/index.html
–They will be helped by the strong possibility that California may be purchasing new science textbooks shortly after the Texas adoption. —
California does not have statewide adoption of textbooks at the 9-12 grade levels, though for some strange reason there is a California edition of the Miller-Levine “Biology” book:
http://www.amazon.com/Biology-California-Kenneth-R-Miller/dp/0132013525
–Should they bother to publish a textbook for a state even as large as Texas that will have to be changed for other markets?–
Usually it is the national textbook that has to be changed for the Texas market — not the other way around.
–Regarding Larry’s repeated assertion that Texas school districts can purchase textbooks not on the state’s official adoption list (and thereby avoid the junk science “poison” editions for Texas), he’s technically correct. But they won’t.–
We are talking only about biology textbooks here. If a biology textbook costs, say, $100 per student, that comes to only about $20 per student per year.
Criticisms of evolution should be brought up by textbooks — we should not depend on teachers and students to bring up criticisms of evolution. And it is ridiculous to (1) say that students are too dumb to understand these criticisms and (2) say at the same time that students are smart enough to bring up these criticisms on their own. Also, even after thinking up a criticism of evolution, it may take a long time to find answers — this has been my experience in my studies of coevolution.
My blog has two articles about textbook adoption:
http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2009/01/effect-of-texas-science-standards-on.html
http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2009/03/texas-influence-on-textbook-content-is.html
Publishers will write textbooks for California high schools to sell in the same year as K-8 textbooks. Salespeople want a full book bag to show districts, which often buy textbook series from the same companies for various grade levels, such as K-5 and 6-12. There is nothing strange about a California edition of the Miller-Levine textbook. It’s a huge market. It would be strange if there were no California edition. In addition, it is generally not true that publishers typically retrofit their national textbooks for Texas. it may be true in some cases, but generally publishers plan for the writing of new textbooks to coincide with adoptions in the largest states, particularly California and Texas. However, given that the State Board of Education wants junk science in the next science textbooks for Texas, we suppose publishers might do things differently for 2011.
We’re not going to debate whether local school districts will use local money to buy textbooks. They don’t, and they won’t. Financially, it makes no sense to give up state dollars they otherwise won’t get.
Joe Lapp:
I was just thinking about possible fallback compromises. It is possible that textbook publishers might say: “Look Texas SBOE. We cannot and will not publish this stuff in the main textbook because other states do not want us to do that, and we have to be able to sell there too. The best we can do is to put it in a workbook or related text supplement that will come as a short, separate volume.”
This I know for sure. If they try to sell some piece of main biology textbook trash with special Texas SBOE evolution-trashing pages like this to our local high school, I and about 5000 other scientists here in our city will mount a national media campaign to CRUCIFY the textbook company that tries it. The local school administrator who allows the purchasing of such books (which is highly unlikely here anyway) can expect to get fired immediately—if not sooner.
A couple of years ago, we had a high school principal who had only been in her job about 1 or 2 years. She got really upset because a student journalist wrote and published explicit information about teenage sexuality and birth control methods in the school newspaper—the kind of thing they need to be doing in actual classes in Texas. It was a great article. In fact, it was the kind of article that would have probably gotten the girl permanently expelled in just about any Texas school system. The principal came down really hard on the girl who wrote the article, the principal apparently thinking that she was living in Texas or Oklahoma instead of our state. We fired the principal so fast her head is probably still spinning. I doubt she even had time to realize what hit her.
TFN Says (April 4, 2009 at 10:26 pm) —
— There is nothing strange about a California edition of the Miller-Levine textbook. It’s a huge market. It would be strange if there were no California edition. —
If California does not have statewide textbook adoption at the 9-12 grade levels, then who set the standards for the California edition of the Miller-Levine textbook?
Textbook Adoption: California adopts instructional materials for students in grades 1 through 8 (Cal. Educ. Code § 60200-60206). The governing board of each school district maintaining one or more high schools adopts instructional materials for use in the high schools under its control (Cal. Educ. Code § 60400-60048).
https://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/57/75/5775.htm
–We’re not going to debate whether local school districts will use local money to buy textbooks. —
I have nothing more to say.
Charles Says (April 4, 2009 at 10:48 pm) —
–It is possible that textbook publishers might say: “Look Texas SBOE. We cannot and will not publish this stuff in the main textbook because other states do not want us to do that, and we have to be able to sell there too.” —
Charles, you still don’t get it. It has already been shown here that textbook publishers customize textbooks for different markets.
–If they try to sell some piece of main biology textbook trash with special Texas SBOE evolution-trashing pages like this to our local high school, I and about 5000 other scientists here in our city will mount a national media campaign to CRUCIFY the textbook company that tries it.–
Then the fundies on the SBOE will just have the textbooks published by Bob Jones University Press or a similar outfit. The introduction of a BJU Press Christian-school biology textbook said, “If the conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong, no matter how many scientific facts may appear to back them.”
b. j. edwards Says (April 4, 2009 at 5:17 pm) —
–blah blah blah blah blah–
As the saying goes, don’t feed the trolls.
Larry says: “If California does not have statewide textbook adoption at the 9-12 grade levels, then who set the standards for the California edition of the Miller-Levine textbook?”
The state sets the standards, but it doesn’t approve high school textbooks for adoption by local school districts. Many states without centralized adoption processes do the same thing. Because of standards-based testing, however, local districts want to buy textbooks that conform to state standards.
Wow, the SBOE has the NB at TFN trembling. Your ranting and raving again destroys any shred of credibility you might have had. I see the behavior you all exhibit over and over in people that have a total lack of self confidence, are consumed by fear, and have difficulty recognizing the truth. Your position would be much stronger if you just let evolutionary theory and creationism compete head to head. You need to promote just what the SBOE has adopted — to examine (analyze and evaluate) ALL sides of ALL theories presented in public classrooms. Your fear that creationists will take over the minds of school students is ridiculous. They aren’t as dumb as you think they are. You should give them some credit. And, if Creationism wins out, well it does so for good reason. The same for evolution. It’s time to quit being such wimps.
Yours TRULY
ScienceMinded writes: “Your position would be much stronger if you just let evolutionary theory and creationism compete head to head.”
They have competed head to head. Creationism lost. Yet creationists still want to teach it as science even though it’s not. It’s faith. What’s especially bad, however, is they want to teach their own particular faith (over everyone else’s) as “science.”
Larry wrote…
“As the saying goes, don’t feed the trolls.”
Don’t worry, I already wrote you off after your first evasion.
ScienceBlinded, you are such a coward it’s really embarrassing to even read your comments.
For other readers, ScienceBlinded said, “You need to promote just what the SBOE has adopted — to examine (analyze and evaluate) ALL sides of ALL theories presented in public classrooms.”
What he won’t answer is this:
Should the following scientific “theory” be discussed in school?:
1. There is no god or gods; the theory of evolution is accurate.
2. The earth (and everything else) was formed as a result of the Big Bang, billions of years ago.
3. We don’t know how life originated, and we may never know.
4. The only supernatural entity in existence is Satan. He didn’t create mankind, but he does have some limited powers than can be quite annoying. For instance, he has affected our thinking to make humans believe in thousands of different “gods” throughout history. He gives them funny names like Mordak, Zeus, and Yahweh, just because he thinks it’s humorous.
5. Satan wrote the Bible as a means to torment mankind. He wants us to think there is a wonderful afterlife, but there isn’t. He got a real kick out of filling the Bible with stonings, genocide, slavery, incest, etc. He also wrote the Koran and some other religious texts just to stir up trouble.
6. Satan planted the idea of intelligent design into some humans’ brains as a means to create havoc on earth. It appears to be working. Just look at the Discovery Institute. They are in the grip of Satan and don’t even realize it.
7. Satan occasionally uses his limited powers to create “evidence” of intelligent design. For instance, he might make some organisms appear irreducibly complex. In other words, all of the “evidence’ for creationism or intelligent can just as well be considered evidence for this theory.
8. There were a lot more fossils around that would have satisfied everybody, including creationists, as far as transitions, but Satan destroyed them.
TFN: Based on the results of the last SBOE meeting, and the consensus of the scorers, it looks like the Creationists have won the latest round!! You need to put aside your bias TFN. Bias has no place in science. And, It looks to me like the battle is still far from over. For one, your side is advocating that evolutionary theory should never be questioned and that creationist thoughts should never be allowed to enter the classroom. By head to head competition, I mean let both be taught in public classrooms. Let the recognized strengths and weaknesses of both theories be analyzed and evaluated from ALL sides. This would actually be good for students. Your actions and attacks demonstrate your total fear and lack of confidence in the very agenda you are so desperately trying to promote.
And Ben, Ben, Ben: How many times do I have to tell you this is not about and should not be about religion. It’s about science. I have seen your behavior over and over in the same people I mentioned in my last post. So, please, stay on subject. You have totally undermined your credibility. I’ll bet you parents and teachers told you this same thing, over and over and over! Ben, Stay On Subject!!
What a pathetic coward. Thanks for the entertainment value, though.
The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means “a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena” (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
Life forms have changed and diversified over life’s history;
Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.
The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).
Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin’s theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.
If “only a theory” were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.
Creationism is neither theory nor fact; it is, at best, only an opinion. Since it explains nothing, it is scientifically useless.
ScienceMinded wrote…
“For one, your side is advocating that evolutionary theory should never be questioned and that creationist thoughts should never be allowed to enter the classroom.”
There is no prohibition against teaching Creationism under proper topics like the history of religion. But Creationism and creationist thoughts are not science and have absolutely no place in science classrooms. ALL science deals with evidence – testable and falsifiable. The scientific method already deals with – and advances by – new data, new evidence, throwing out those theories that do not withstand the test of new evidence and new theories to explain it. The scientific method IS about constantly questioning.
No matter how much you misrepresent the science of evolution and falsely claim that Creationism is a “valid, competing, scientific alternative” to evolution, we will call you on it and continue to educate Americans about the truth. As The Sensuous Curmudgeon said succinctly on his blog yesterday:
“With such a chastity belt around his brain, a creationist will always be limited to what he learned as a child, unless he can somehow break through that barrier. If this is someone’s personal situation, it’s entirely his affair. Millions find happiness in this way, and we wish them well.
“But it becomes everyone’s problem if the creationist tries to impose that chastity belt on others.”
Keep your religious beliefs to yourself and your Church.
TFN Says (April 5, 2009 at 5:19 pm) —
— Because of standards-based testing, however, local districts want to buy textbooks that conform to state standards.–
How many states have standards-based testing? TAKS (Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills) testing is relatively new. And how important are the TAKS tests? It seems that universities are more interested in the College Board SAT and subject tests. And how come it seems that there is only concern about how the new Texas science standards will affect textbooks and no concern about how those standards will affect TAKS tests?
TFN Says (April 5, 2009 at 5:21 pm) —
–They have competed head to head. Creationism lost. Yet creationists still want to teach it as science even though it’s not.–
It really does not matter whether or not we agree on the validity of various criticisms of evolution because — as I have pointed out — there are sometimes good reasons for teaching invalid criticisms of evolution.
–It’s faith. —
Evolution theory is faith, too. Evolution theory sometimes requires even more faith than some criticisms of evolution theory, because evolution theory — unlike a lot of the criticisms — often makes claims beyond what can be proven by science.
b. j. edwards Says (April 5, 2009 at 5:45 pm) —
–Don’t worry, I already wrote you off after your first evasion.–
You call my comment of April 4, 2009 at 3:16 pm an “evasion”? You are really sick in the head.
ScienceMinded Says (April 6, 2009 at 1:24 am) —
–TFN: Based on the results of the last SBOE meeting, and the consensus of the scorers, it looks like the Creationists have won the latest round!!–
That’s true. Critics of evolution also won in Louisiana with the Academic Freedom Law. The Darwinists can no longer claim that the critics of evolution have never won anything.
b. j. edwards Says (April 6, 2009 at 9:28 am) —
–There is no prohibition against teaching Creationism under proper topics like the history of religion. But Creationism and creationist thoughts are not science and have absolutely no place in science classrooms.–
Some criticisms of evolution are so technically sophisticated that they should be taught only by qualified science teachers. You Darwinists talk out of both sides of your mouths: You say that some criticisms of evolution just “confuse” students, yet you want these criticisms to be taught by unqualified people.
Larry wrote for all to see…
“You call my comment of April 4, 2009 at 3:16 pm an “evasion”? You are really sick in the head.”
You are awfully offended that I asked you a question. One that you could not answer. I would complain about your ad hominems but I have had years of experience with 9/11 Deniers and Holocaust Deniers doing the exact same thing.
Just to remind you that the question that offended you is still on the table:
Larry:
Would you give examples of your claim that, “Darwinists have been misusing the Constitution’s establishment clause to seek censorship of criticisms of Darwinism?” When and how?
b. j. edwards Says:
–Would you give examples of your claim that, “Darwinists have been misusing the Constitution’s establishment clause to seek censorship of criticisms of Darwinism?” When and how?–
Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish (2000), Selman v. Cobb County (2004), and Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005). And you Darwinists are still beating us over the head with that stupid, worthless Kitzmiller decision, over three years after it was issued. It is just a decision of a single judge.
Ah. So that’s why you are so angry.
The law took its course in upholding the Constitution and the law won. Perhaps if you kept your religious views to yourself you wouldn’t have to have your knuckles slapped with the Constitution so often.
TFN said: “They have competed head to head. Creationism lost.”
This is exactly true. The simple fact of where this battle is being fought is proof enough.
Why is it all about high schoolers (and younger kids)? Consider the necessary scenario that is being put forth: A vast majority of scientists in the world are in a massive conspiracy to defend evolution despite its many flaws, and the only way to protect our kids is to teach them all those flaws before they learn all the tenets of evolution, because after that they’ll never turn back from the Dark Side.
So we have to teach kids the weaknesses of evolution so that THEY’LL be able to see, and avoid, the trap that pretty much every doctoral biologist in the world has fallen into?
I have to stop for a minute and appreciate the humor in that. Not only is it a conspiracy theory of the first magnitude, but it has a certain Tom and Jerry “the mouse can win!” feel to it.
b. j. edwards Says (April 7, 2009 at 7:14 am ) —
–The law took its course in upholding the Constitution and the law won. —
The law took its course in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) — the “separate but equal” segregation ruling — and the law won. There was just one little problem — in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court unanimously reversed Plessy.
Of the four cases I mentioned, only one, Edwards, involved the actual teaching of criticisms of evolution. The other three were all evolution disclaimer cases.
Kitzmiller is an unappealed decision of a single crackpot judge who: (1) said that his decision was based on his cockamamie notion that the Founders based the establishment clause upon a belief that organized religions are not “true” religions, (2) copied the opinion’s ID-as-science section virtually verbatim from the ACLU’s opening post-trial brief, and (3) said that critics of the decision have no respect for “the rule of law” and “judicial independence.”
The other two cases, Selman and Freiler, came close to being reversed on appeal:
In Selman, the appeals judges indicated in an oral hearing that they were leaning towards reversal but then vacated and remanded the decision because of missing evidence. The school board then took a dive by settling out of court.
Freiler came within single votes of (1) being granted an en banc appeals court rehearing and (2) being granted certiorari by the US Supreme Court. In both the appeals court and the Supreme Court, judges/justices opposing denial of an en banc rehearing and certiorari wrote dissenting opinions.
These three cases are extensively discussed on my blog —
http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/
Larry, seriously, you should refrain from blog-pimping.
Ben Says:
–Larry, seriously, you should refrain from blog-pimping.–
Ben, seriously, you should refrain from making stupid comments.
Zing! How can I argue with that?
What an unbelievable waste of bandwidth and time. As B J Edwards writes: “–blah blah blah blah blah … don’t feed the trolls.” Nobody wins this sniping war. Everyone who responds to Farfar et al just gives them more cause to spout their inane crap. They love having the opportunity. This is not a joust being run under some weird rules. This is serious stuff and beating up on Farfar et al accomplishes nothing.
The only entries that make sense are ones that propose actions that could defeat the fundamentalist conspiracy — yes, that’s what it is. Charles’ proposal of trying to get publishers to put the creationist crap into a workbook makes some sense, although I don’t know who or what organization has the clout to do that.
Even TFN seems loathe to do what is necessary to stop this nonsense once and for all. The religious motivation of the McL crowd is abundantly clear for all to see, and if that is not illegal, I don’t know what is.
I still believe that if students are to be required to look critically at all sides of every scientific question they should similarly be required to look critically at whether or not God exists and argue the “truths” that are written in the Bible.
I think Larry Farfarman should stop wasting his time because he doesn’t agree with Constitutional law and put his energy into having Creationism taught in classes where it belongs, say, in overviews of the history of philosophy or the history of mythology.
He should understand by now why it is inappropriate to teach non-science in science classes.
Wen Says (April 8, 2009 at 3:12 pm) —
–I still believe that if students are to be required to look critically at all sides of every scientific question they should similarly be required to look critically at whether or not God exists and argue the “truths” that are written in the Bible.–
The “cafeteria Christians” who interpret the gospel literally but do not interpret the bible’s creation story literally need to go back to Sunday school to learn the following facts:
(1) If god is assumed to be all-powerful, then the creation story makes sense while the gospel does not. The god of the creation story is all-powerful whereas the god of the gospel is weak and limited — the god of the gospel must battle Satan for control of the world and it is Satan who sets the rules of battle.
(2) To believe the bible’s creation story, one only needs to believe in the existence of god and the supernatural. To believe in the gospel, one must also accept illogic and inconsistency.
(3) The sole basis for believing the gospel is a belief in the inerrancy of the bible. If the bible is inerrant, then the bible’s creation story must be true.
Buhallin Says (April 7, 2009 at 5:15 pm) —
–the only way to protect our kids is to teach them all those flaws before they learn all the tenets of evolution–
They can learn the flaws after they learn all the tenets of evolution.
–So we have to teach kids the weaknesses of evolution so that THEY’LL be able to see, and avoid, the trap that pretty much every doctoral biologist in the world has fallen into?–
It’s amazing, isn’t it? It’s like the story of the emperor’s new clothes. Or like those old Marlboro Filters Man ads that said, “almost everybody.”
Dick N Says (April 8, 2009 at 2:49 pm) —
–The religious motivation of the McL crowd is abundantly clear for all to see, and if that is not illegal, I don’t know what is.–
It is perfectly legal according to the “endorsement test, ” which says in part,
“The Establishment Clause prohibits government from making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person’s standing in the political community. ” — from Justice O’Connor’s concurring opinion in Lynch v. Donnelly
b. j. edwards Says (April 8, 2009 at 6:24 pm) —
–I think Larry Farfarman should stop wasting his time because he doesn’t agree with Constitutional law–
I agree with constitutional law — it is Judge Jones who does not agree with constitutional law. He said that his Kitzmiller v. Dover decision was based on his cockamamie notion that the Founders based the establishment clause upon a belief that organized religions are not “true” religions.
–and put his energy into having Creationism taught in classes where it belongs, say, in overviews of the history of philosophy or the history of mythology.–
As I said a zillion times already, some criticisms of evolution are so technically sophisticated that they should be taught only by qualified science teachers. You Darwinists talk out of both sides of your mouths — you say that these criticisms only “confuse” students, yet you want these criticisms to be taught by unqualified people.
Larry wrote…
“As I said a zillion times already, some criticisms of evolution are so technically sophisticated that they should be taught only by qualified science teachers.”
You missed the salient point that IF they are scientific criticisms of evolution then they WILL be taught as science.
Sheesh…
Larry, I think it is probably time for you to remove yourself from the discussion. The more you talk, the more you state information about what evolutionists want, or believe, that simply is not true. Where did you ever figure that “Darwinists” (read: evolutionists) “want criticisms to be taught by unqualified people.” First you folks on the other side of the story, need to point out things that need your criticism and evolutionists will show you that any scientific theory worthy of being termed a theory has already withstood great amounts of criticism heaped upon it by people much more knowledgeable than any one who professes to believe in the Creation. I find that I can agree with you on one point. You write: “To believe in the Gospel, one must also accept illogic and inconsistency.” Amen, brother. And this is the very reason the arguments for Creationism and Intelligent Design have not one iota of scientific basis. Who among your followers can tell me who was present at the beginning of life on the planet and can testify as to how it happened?
b. j. edwards Says (April 9, 2009 at 2:50 pm} —
–Larry wrote…
“As I said a zillion times already, some criticisms of evolution are so technically sophisticated that they should be taught only by qualified science teachers.”
You missed the salient point that IF they are scientific criticisms of evolution then they WILL be taught as science.–
You Darwinists say that intelligent design is not scientific but I have seen some Internet debates about ID subjects — e.g., the bacterial flagellum and the blood-clotting cascade — that were extremely technically sophisticated. This stuff is not just “poof”-type creationism that can be taught by laypeople. Also, I have found that even such a seemingly simple idea as coevolution — which Darwinists pooh-pooh as just “mutual evolutionary pressure between two different kinds of organisms” or something like that — can become extremely complicated. For example, when I really got deep into coevolution, I learned about different kinds of interspecies relationships, e.g., obligate mutualism, non-obligate mutualism, parasitism, commensalism, and amensalism, and how these different relationships have different implications for coevolution. I also learned about buzz pollination, orchids’ mimicry of female wasps’ sex pheromones, and extremely complex and/or multi-host parasitisms.
Wen Says (April 9, 2009 at 3:27 pm ) —
— Larry, I think it is probably time for you to remove yourself from the discussion.–
“I’m always kicking their butts — that’s why they don’t like me.”
— Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
–Where did you ever figure that “Darwinists” (read: evolutionists) “want criticisms to be taught by unqualified people.”–
Well, that’s true.
–First you folks on the other side of the story, need to point out things that need your criticism and evolutionists will show you that any scientific theory worthy of being termed a theory has already withstood great amounts of criticism heaped upon it by people much more knowledgeable than any one who professes to believe in the Creation. —
That’s got nothing to do with my claim that technically sophisticated criticisms of evolution should not be taught by unqualified people.
–I find that I can agree with you on one point. You write: “To believe in the Gospel, one must also accept illogic and inconsistency.” Amen, brother. And this is the very reason the arguments for Creationism and Intelligent Design have not one iota of scientific basis. —
No, you do not agree with me on that point — you completely misinterpreted what I said. If god is assumed to exist and is assumed to be all-powerful, then the bible’s creation story is perfectly logical and consistent but the gospel is not, because the god of the gospel must fight Satan for control of the world.
Larry wrote…
“You Darwinists say that intelligent design is not scientific but I have seen some Internet debates about ID subjects — e.g., the bacterial flagellum and the blood-clotting cascade — that were extremely technically sophisticated.”
Let’s try this again: You missed the salient point that IF they are scientific criticisms of evolution then they WILL be part of the scientific discussion.
Your claims are based entirely on a fallacious assumption of what the scientific method is and how the process works. You are trying to perpetuate a false dichotomy where none exists. Valid scientific debates occur within peer-reviewed journals, not on the Internet.
You’re just whistling in the wind.
b. j. edwards Says (April 10, 2009 at 9:14 am) —
–You missed the salient point that IF they are scientific criticisms of evolution then they WILL be part of the scientific discussion.–
Wrong — there is no guarantee that a scientific criticism of evolution will be part of the scientific discussion. And technically sophisticated pseudoscientific criticisms of evolution should also not be taught by unqualified people — for example, IMO using the Second Law of Thermodynamics to criticize evolution is pseudoscientific, but I nonetheless feel that this criticism should not be taught by unqualified people. It has nothing to do with whether the criticism is scientific or pseudoscientific.
–Valid scientific debates occur within peer-reviewed journals, not on the Internet.–
Not true — valid scientific debates also occur on the Internet. And the Internet has the advantages that comments can be attached directly to articles, comments can be immediately posted, comment space is virtually unlimited, anyone can comment, and sources can be directly accessed by URL links. Welcome to the Internet Age.
You are anti-science and anti-intellectual.
Larry wrote…
“Wrong — there is no guarantee that a scientific criticism of evolution will be part of the scientific discussion. ”
Wrong. It is the mechanism by which science advances. It is impossible to stop it.
“Not true — valid scientific debates also occur on the Internet.”
But the scientific method guarantees that scientific theories and evidence will be published in peer-reviewed journals to be affirmed or refuted. No one can stop it, not even you Creationists, no matter how you try.
Really, Larry, where do you come up with your desperate nonsense?
b.j.
Have you seen this great essay about crackpots?:
http://www.cognitionandculture.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=435:how-i-found-glaring-errors-in-einsteins-calculations&catid=57:pascals-blog&Itemid=34
Might remind you of someone we know.
Wow. I have been perusing the comments by Larry Fafarman. Classic examples of rhetorical claptrap! In fact I am wondering if this is really a sophisticated parody. If not, then I suggest this guy make sure he is tied to the ground just in case gravity suddenly gets turned off. He seems not to realize that we understand evolution much better than we do gravity. The fact that we do not know everything about gravity or evolution has no bearing on their reality. They are observable and measurable. We just happen to have better explanations for evolution than we do for gravity.
The notion that there are other objections to evolution that are not based on religious ideas, but on scientific evidence, is specious: either incredibly ignorant or incredibly dishonest (or some obnoxious combination).
Ben,
Thanks for that great link. I particularly like the link to The Crackpot Index, http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html. Adapted for Creationists, this would make a very simple reference to them without having to repeat ourselves, e.g.,
Joe: Have you heard of this crackpot, Don McLeroy?
Sam: Yes, he’s a 432.
Joe: Thanks, that says it all.
der Brat Says (April 11, 2009 at 1:25 am
–Wow. I have been perusing the comments by Larry Fafarman. Classic examples of rhetorical claptrap! —
So far, no one has successfully countered my arguments about coevolution —
http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2009/01/summary-of-thoughts-about-co-evolution.html
No one ever successfully counters what a true believer says inasmuch as that believer makes the judgment. You may be somewhat knowledgeable of some aspects of evolution, but the thing you are most adept at seems to be blowing smoke. Arguments in blogs are not how science gets done. What I most wonder is what advantage accrues to you as you tilt at the windmills of science? If you or any other creationist had anything of substance, science would gladly consider it. But you don’t. All you have is rhetoric: smoke and mirrors. Some of you are merely ignorant fools, some are liars, and some may be both.
Larry wrote…
“So far, no one has successfully countered my arguments about coevolution –
http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2009/01/summary-of-thoughts-about-co-evolution.html”
Your argument states categorically…
“A mutant pig with wings that suddenly appears anywhere in the world can fly immediately, but bees appearing in the absence of flowers or flowers appearing in the absence of bees — or other pollinators — will die immediately.”
Larry, when did flowering pants start showing up? When did bees start showing up? Can you claim they appeared at the same time and were co-dependent immediately?
Cite your sources.
der Brat Says (April 11, 2009 at 9:56 pm) —
–No one ever successfully counters what a true believer says inasmuch as that believer makes the judgment.–
Wrong — it is possible for people to be persuaded that their ideas are wrong or questionable. And hardly anyone has even attempted to counter my ideas about coevolution on my own blog. And in the following comment thread on another blog, a troll responded to my comments by repeating over and over again, “how is this a problem for evolution?” —
http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2008/12/freaks_of_nature_and_bridgeles.php
Also, your argument is a two-edged sword — it can also be argued that Darwinists’ minds are closed to new ideas that conflict with evolution theory.
— Arguments in blogs are not how science gets done.–
You Darwinists duck debate by setting up your own arbitrary rules about how science gets done. Science can get done anywhere and anyhow. Darwin’s Origin of Species, for example, was not peer-reviewed prior to publication. Blogs and other Internet websites are particularly effective ways of doing science — the comment sections can be open to anyone, comment space is virtually unlimited, and comments are posted immediately. The original article can even be modified in response to comments. In contrast, peer-reviewed journals are very limited. Many scientists maintain blogs or websites where they present their research..
Law journal articles often cite blogs. Here is a list of 489 citations of law blogs by law journal articles:
http://3lepiphany.typepad.com/3l_epiphany/2006/08/law_review_arti.html
The list is dated Aug. 16, 2006 and must be a lot longer by now.
There have even been some citations of law blogs by court opinions (this list is also old, dated Aug. 6, 2006) —
http://3lepiphany.typepad.com/3l_epiphany/2006/08/cases_citing_le.html
I have no data on the numbers of citations of blogs by scientific journal articles, but I see no reason why a scientific journal article should not cite a blog.
–If you or any other creationist had anything of substance, science would gladly consider it.–
Wrong — my ideas about coevolution were banned from the blog of the Florida Citizens for Science —
http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2008/04/co-evolution-theory-censored-by-florida.html
Many people’s minds are closed to any new ideas that conflict with their preconceived notions. I have run into this problem in regard to my non-traditional holocaust-revisionist argument that a “systematic” Jewish holocaust was impossible because the Nazis had no objective and reliable ways of identifying Jews and non-Jews. Ed Brayton kicked me off his blog permanently because my literal interpretation of a federal court rule was different from his preconceived notion of the purpose of the rule — he didn’t even give me a chance to respond to his arguments —
http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2007/03/comments-censored-elsewhere-new-feature.html#c2753919959400074362
–Some of you are merely ignorant fools, some are liars, and some may be both.–
“I’m always kicking their butts — that’s why they don’t like me.”
— Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
b. j. edwards Says (April 12, 2009 at 9:48 am) —
–Larry, when did flowering pants start showing up? When did bees start showing up? Can you claim they appeared at the same time and were co-dependent immediately? —
It’s not a claim, it’s a question: If one cannot survive without the other, then how did they both first appear at the same time and place? And even where coevolution of co-dependent traits can be gradual, the gradual changes in both kinds of organisms must exist at the same time and place in order to be mutually reinforcing.
Larry, befuddled, wrote…
“It’s not a claim, it’s a question: If one cannot survive without the other, then how did they both first appear at the same time and place?”
Please don’t evade my question, Larry. I have asked you specifically if you can provide evidence that both flowering plants and bees appeared at the same time. You cannot take a current status of co-dependence and make a post-hoc claim that it must have always been so. No scientist would make such an assumption and neither can non-scientists.
So please provide the evidence that both flowering plants and bees appeared at the same time and were immediately co-dependent on each other.
b. j. edwards Says (April 12, 2009 at 5:44 pm) —
–Please don’t evade my question, Larry. I have asked you specifically if you can provide evidence that both flowering plants and bees appeared at the same time.–
Sheeeesh, I am not evading your question, you are evading my answers. I never claimed that flowering plants and bees (or other co-dependent pollinators) first appeared at the same time in the same place.
–You cannot take a current status of co-dependence and make a post-hoc claim that it must have always been so. —
How could they have co-evolved? That is the question.
You are the one who is befuddled.
Larry, totally confused wrote…
“Sheeeesh, I am not evading your question, you are evading my answers. I never claimed that flowering plants and bees (or other co-dependent pollinators) first appeared at the same time in the same place.”
A reminder, Larry, that you wrote…
“A mutant pig with wings that suddenly appears anywhere in the world can fly immediately, but bees appearing in the absence of flowers or flowers appearing in the absence of bees — or other pollinators — will die immediately.”
Let’s try again. If you cannot tell us when flowering plants showed up and when bees showed up and therefore cannot tell us their initial state, i.e., if they were co-dependent *to begin with*, then you don’t even have the basic knowledge to conclude: ”
…in co-evolution, if the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other kind of organism is absent, natural selection will not occur.”
In other words, Larry, you cannot even support the validity of your premise.
b. j. edwards Says (April 13, 2009 at 6:40 am) —
–If you cannot tell us when flowering plants showed up and when bees showed up and therefore cannot tell us their initial state, i.e., if they were co-dependent *to begin with*, then you don’t even have the basic knowledge to conclude: ”
…in co-evolution, if the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other kind of organism is absent, natural selection will not occur.”–
“Conclude”? That’s not a conclusion — that is a fact. Are you denying that there will be no natural selection of a co-dependent trait if the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other kind of organism is locally absent?
Larry, ever evasive, wrote:
“If one cannot survive without the other, then how did they both first appear at the same time and place? ”
Still waiting for you to stop your evasions and answer my question, Larry. Now, just when did flowering plants appear, and when did bees appear? Were they co-dependent on each other at the beginning?
Speak up, Larry.
Last comment for Larry Fafarman: I have spent (wasted) countless hours trying to explain things to anti-evolutionists. I continually get the same rhetorical nonsense and the same sort of attempts at gottcha, in which the attack consists of some new or obscure factoid with the query: so what about …? Well, once that objection is answered they move on to another. After a long while it is clear that facts and logic are completely pointless. They already know what the truth is and do not really want to understand the science. I am too tired of this silly game to continue a dialogue with a demagogue. –30–
–Still waiting for you to stop your evasions and answer my question, Larry. Now, just when did flowering plants appear, and when did bees appear?–
OK, b.j., I’ll answer your question. My answer is that I have no idea. Now will you answer my question: “Are you denying that there will be no natural selection of a co-dependent trait if the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other kind of organism is locally absent?”
Larry, not willing to face the implications of his statements, wrote….
“OK, b.j., I’ll answer your question. My answer is that I have no idea.”
Gosh. Well thank you, Larry. I consider that progress.
So, given – finally – your admission that you do not know when flowering plants first appeared, nor do you know when bees first appeared, can you state for the record that you cannot tell us their initial states, i.e., if they were co-dependent *to begin with* or not?
der Brat wrote…
“I continually get the same rhetorical nonsense and the same sort of attempts at gottcha, in which the attack consists of some new or obscure factoid with the query: so what about …?”
It’s a common tactic of all denialists. I’ve spent years fighting Holocaust Deniers and 9/11 Deniers online, and the methodology is the same. The 9/11 Denial Movement is especially famous for the tactic, “We’re just asking questions!”, while they screech at full volume that “9/11 was an inside job, you sheeple!!!
But dare to ask them a question about THEIR own claims?
Well! The nerve! How dare we?!
der Brat Says (April 13, 2009 at 6:15 pm) —
–Last comment for Larry Fafarman: I have spent (wasted) countless hours trying to explain things to anti-evolutionists.–
I don’t know what in the hell you are talking about. You didn’t try to explain anything — you just stated some of your own personal opinions.
–I am too tired of this silly game to continue a dialogue with a demagogue. —
Me a demagogue? LOL That’s the first time I heard that one.
b. j. edwards Says (April 13, 2009 at 7:25 pm) —
–can you state for the record that you cannot tell us their initial states, i.e., if they were co-dependent *to begin with* or not?–
I can answer that question, but I want you to answer my question before I answer any more of your questions. We should have a two-way street here.
b. j. edwards Says (April 13, 2009 at 7:34 pm ) —
–It’s a common tactic of all denialists. I’ve spent years fighting Holocaust Deniers —
Here is another Holocaust-revisionist argument for you to fight: I assert that a “systematic” Jewish holocaust was impossible because the Nazis had no objective and reliable ways of identifying Jews and non-Jews.
–But dare to ask them a question about THEIR own claims? —
Ask me.
Larry wrote…
“I can answer that question, but I want you to answer my question before I answer any more of your questions. ”
Sorry, Larry, that evasion does not work. You have made specific claims that I have asked you to support. We are discussing YOUR claims and assertions and you are obligated to support them. There is no quid pro quo here and your continued evasion does you no good.
Now, please answer the question on the table: “So, given – finally – your admission that you do not know when flowering plants first appeared, nor do you know when bees first appeared, can you state for the record that you cannot tell us their initial states, i.e., if they were co-dependent *to begin with* or not?”
Larry wrote…
“Here is another Holocaust-revisionist argument for you to fight: I assert that a “systematic” Jewish holocaust was impossible because the Nazis had no objective and reliable ways of identifying Jews and non-Jews.
–But dare to ask them a question about THEIR own claims? –
Ask me.”
I’ve asked you to respond to questions relevant to the subject matter at hand on this blog. If you want to discuss Holocaust Denial, you can discuss that with me on the JREF Forums, not here.