I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Thursday, August 17, 2006

Darwinism is grossly overrated

Things have gotten so bad that knowledge and even acceptance of Darwinism is now considered by many to be a litmus test for "scientific literacy." Consider the following examples:

(1) The University of California denied accreditation to a Christian high school's biology course because the textbooks criticize Darwinism and say things like, "If the conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong, no matter how many scientific facts may appear to back them."

(2) The Executive Summary of the 2005 Fordham Foundation (no connection to Fordham Univ.) report on state science standards gave the Kansas evolution standards a rating of "not even failed" because they included weaknesses of Darwinism.

(3) An organization with the misleading grand-sounding title "National Center for Science Education" is dedicated exclusively to promoting the teaching of Darwinism and suppressing the teaching of criticisms of Darwinism. Also, many state Darwinist organizations have misleading titles like "Ohio Citizens for Science."

(4) A New York Times op-ed piece that is critical of the Kansas evolution standards is titled, "How to Make Sure Children Are Scientifically Illiterate."

(5) We keep hearing fearmongering warnings that American ignorance and rejection of Darwinism threatens the country's international technological competitiveness.

The irony of all this is that Darwinism is one of the most useless theories around. I assert that with the exception of micro-evolution, which has actually been observed, knowledge of evolution is not necessary in the study of biology. In an article titled, "Does Nothing in Biology Make Sense Except in the Light of Evolution?", Jerry Bergman says,

Although Darwinists often talk about the central importance of “evolution” in gaining a basic understanding of the natural world, my research reveals that the daily work of both scientific education (and in most scientific research), evolution is rarely mentioned or even a concern. This has been my own experience as a research associate involved in cancer research in the department of experimental pathology at the Medical College of Ohio and a college professor in the life and behavioral science area for over 30 years.

The Talk.Origins website's statement that "teaching biology without evolution would be like teaching chemistry without the periodic table of the elements" is a gross exaggeration:

Claim CA042:
Evolution does not need to be taught in science classes. The important parts of biology, such as how organisms function, how they are classified, and how they interact with one another, do not depend on evolution.

Response:
Biology without evolution is natural history, not biology. There is a great deal of important information in natural history that should be taught, but evolution is the unifying idea that ties it all together, allowing one not only to know the facts but to understand them and to know where the facts come from. Teaching biology without evolution would be like teaching chemistry without the periodic table of the elements.

There is nothing more fundamental to biology than Linnaean taxonomy, and this taxonomy preceded Darwinism and even Lamarckism. A more recent classification system, cladistic taxonomy or cladics, is conceptualized in terms of evolution, but such conceptualization can be regarded as just a convenience. And even if an important biological concept is considered to be part of evolution theory, scientists can use the concept even while believing that all or part of evolution theory is untrue, in the same way that engineers use complex-number mathematics in the analysis of AC circuits and aerodynamics while being aware that the analysis has no physical relationship to reality. For example, in the Joukowski transformation of conformal mapping, the aerodynamics of a rotating circular cylinder is used to analyze the aerodynamics of wing airfoils. And in AC circuit analysis, the complex-plane impedance vector in particular has no direct relationship to the physical entities of the circuit.

Labels:

7 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Has he cracked up yet?

Thursday, August 17, 2006 10:43:00 PM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

Still lying about AC circuits, I see.

Friday, August 18, 2006 6:09:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> Has he cracked up yet? <

Where have you been?

He has been delusional since the beginning of this blog but his logical disconnects are growing daily.

The problem is that since he is harmless, he can't get help without his own cooperation. Catch 22.

Friday, August 18, 2006 8:30:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

There seems to be an increasing amount of frustration and dispair in his posts. I think that he has passed the edge some time ago, but he looks like he may be going into a new stage.

The obsession with ID fits very closely with his previous delusions of supernatural forces being behind everyday events. He used to believe that everyone else knew this and he was furious that we just wouldn't confess.

It is hard to know if he really believes what he posts, but he at least gives the appearance that he thinks he is winning some of these "debates". When he knows that he is losing, he engages in personal attack.

Friday, August 18, 2006 9:28:00 AM  
Anonymous Bill Carter said...

ViW,

I think that you have the key there. Larry(?)'s belief in ID fits in with his idea the consumer goods on store shelves have a supernatural origin.

Friday, August 18, 2006 11:08:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How might I, a Biology and AP Biology teacher explain how bacteria become resistant to antibiotics without discussion into genetic variation, selection, and evolution? We could call it majic, but we might just as well eliminate science from our curriculum altogether. We don't need science, when we believe in majic.

Friday, March 30, 2007 11:13:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Anonymous said,

>>>>> How might I, a Biology and AP Biology teacher explain how bacteria become resistant to antibiotics without discussion into genetic variation, selection, and evolution? We could call it majic, but we might just as well eliminate science from our curriculum altogether. <<<<<<

Well, it is sort of magic. Gravity is sort of magic. A lot of scientific observations are sort of magic,

As an engineer, I think that the use of imaginary numbers and complex-plane vectors in the analysis of AC circuits is magic. I think the same way about the Joukowski transformation of conformal mapping, where rotating cylinders are used to determine the aerodynamics of fixed wing airfoils.

Maybe you could tell your students that the development of bacterial resistance to anti-biotics is an example of microevolution as distinguished from macroevolution. Maybe you could tell your students that at least part of that development of bacterial resistance is not mysterious because resistant bacteria are more likely to survive than non-resistant bacteria. Maybe you could tell your students that evolution theory can be viewed as sort of a hokey concept that is sometimes useful in biology but that is not necessarily true. Anyway, I think that you are creating problems where there are none.

Saturday, March 31, 2007 1:53:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home