Darwinists' obsession with "Of Pandas and People"
"Of Pandas and People" is the Intelligent Design book that was central to the Kitzmiller v. Dover case. The court focused on the book even though the case was supposed to be about ID and not about a particular book about ID -- the only thing that was special about the book was that it happened to be the ID book that was selected by the Dover school board. Though there are many other books that discuss and promote ID, the Darwinists are -- more than 2½ years after release of the Kitzmiller decision -- still obsessed with "Of Pandas and People." To the Darwinists, this book is the ID movement's equivalent of the bible, the koran, the torah, and Chairman Mao's red book.
Panda's Thumb has a new article titled "Padian’s Takedown of 'Of Pandas and People,'" with a link to Kevin Padian's expert oral testimony and visual slides presented at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial. If the Darwinists' case against ID is so heavily dependent on attacking just a single book, then their case must be very weak indeed.
Ironically, after fighting so hard to keep even the mere mention of ID out of public school science courses, the hypocritical Darwinists may now be trying to introduce ID into public school science courses just for the purpose of attacking it. A comment on the Panda's Thumb article said,
Panda's Thumb has a new article titled "Padian’s Takedown of 'Of Pandas and People,'" with a link to Kevin Padian's expert oral testimony and visual slides presented at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial. If the Darwinists' case against ID is so heavily dependent on attacking just a single book, then their case must be very weak indeed.
Ironically, after fighting so hard to keep even the mere mention of ID out of public school science courses, the hypocritical Darwinists may now be trying to introduce ID into public school science courses just for the purpose of attacking it. A comment on the Panda's Thumb article said,
Calyptephile | August 24, 2008 8:05 PM |
I teach high school biology and I will be using some of these slides this fall. A huge “thank you” to Kevin Padian and Nick Matzke for sharing such tremendously useful diagrams for teachers like me to use in the continuing struggle to get students to realize that transitional fossils really do exist! The more these kinds of tools are put into high school teachers’ hands, the better.
Labels: Evolution education (new #3)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 8/30/2008 05:41:00 PM
18 Comments:
Larry quoted this comment: Calyptephile | August 24, 2008 8:05 PM |
I teach high school biology and I will be using some of these slides this fall. A huge “thank you” to Kevin Padian and Nick Matzke for sharing such tremendously useful diagrams for teachers like me to use in the continuing struggle to get students to realize that transitional fossils really do exist! The more these kinds of tools are put into high school teachers’ hands, the better.
And wrote, regarding it: the hypocritical Darwinists may now be trying to introduce ID into public school science courses just for the purpose of attacking it
There is no mention of ID in the passage left. There are many, many slides from Padian's presentation that do not mention ID. Look at slide 13. Then 14. Then 15, for just a few examples. Calyptephile wrote, "to get students to realize that transitional fossils really do exist." It seems reasonable to assume that Calyptephile is referring to a slide that shows transitional fossils. Of course, Larry's not reasonable, hence we have this post.
I'm too tired to address the other problems with Larry's post. If no one else says anything, maybe I will later.
It's that lousy troll Nada Platonico who thinks that everyone knows that a campus of Rutgers Univ. is in a town named New Brunswick in NJ and insulted me for not knowing. What an idiot. He has no credibility, as he also amply demonstrates here.
>>>>>> There are many, many slides from Padian's presentation that do not mention ID. <<<<<<
I never claimed that all the slides mention ID, dunghill.
>>>>>> Calyptephile wrote, "to get students to realize that transitional fossils really do exist." It seems reasonable to assume that Calyptephile is referring to a slide that shows transitional fossils. <<<<<<
What is to prevent him or others from also using slides that mention ID or creationism, dunghill.
The following item from a national survey of teachers shows that some teachers are actually teaching about creationism and/or intelligent design, though not necessarily in a positive way:
Creationism in the classroom: We also asked teachers whether they spent classroom time on creationism or intelligent design. We found that 25% of teachers indicated that they devoted at least one or two classroom hours to creationism or intelligent design (see Table 1). However, these numbers can be misleading because while some teachers may cover creationism to expose students to an alternative to evolutionary theory, others may bring up creationism in order to criticize it or in response to student inquiries. Questions that simply ask about time devoted to creationism, therefore, will overstate support for creationism or intelligent design by counting both those who teach creationism as a serious subject and those holding it up for criticism or ridicule. We asked a series of supplemental questions that provided some additional insight into the character of creationism in the classroom. Of the 25% of teachers who devoted time to creationism or intelligent design, nearly half agreed or strongly agreed that they teach creationism as a “valid scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species.” Nearly the same number agreed or strongly agreed that when they teach creationism or intelligent design they emphasize that “many reputable scientists view these as valid alternatives to Darwinian Theory” (see Table S3).
On the other hand, many teachers devoted time to creationism either to emphasize that religious theories have no place in the science classroom or to challenge the legitimacy of these alternatives. Of those who spent time on the subject, 32% agreed or strongly agreed that when they teach creationism they emphasize that almost all scientists reject it as a valid account of the origin of species, and 40% agreed or strongly agreed that when they teach creationism they acknowledge it as a valid religious perspective, but one that is inappropriate for a science class.
Larry wrote, "What an idiot. He has no credibility, as he also amply demonstrates here."
His website also states, "ad hominem attacks are discouraged."
We already knew that you were full of it. Just one more piece of evidence.
>>>>>> His website also states, "ad hominem attacks are discouraged." <<<<<<
You broke the rule first, dunghill.
"Pandas" is an old ID book with some defects, so it's no marvel that the Darwinists like to pretend that it expresses the views of most present-day ID advocates. But they will have a hard time keeping up that pretence, as new books on ID are published. Behe's book The Edge of Evolution was published last year, along with The Design of Life by Dembski and Wells, and The Design Matrix by the pseudonymous "Mike Gene."
Jim Sherwood said,
>>>>> Pandas" is an old ID book with some defects <<<<<<
Right, Jim, it is very old in terms of the ID movement. The first edition was published in 1989, the second in 1993. According to Wikipedia, early drafts go back as far as 1983.
I think it is the only ID book designed to be a middle & high school textbook, which is probably the reason why the Dover school board chose it. But it was a very poor choice because it does not contain the latest ID ideas.
> It's that lousy troll Nada Platonico who thinks that everyone knows that a campus of Rutgers Univ. is in a town named New Brunswick in NJ and insulted me for not knowing<
No. He just rightly assumed that anyone who assumed that Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick was in Canada was an idiot.
You have no credibility, as you amply demonstrate here.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Any comments concerning my relatives will be treated as gossip and deleted.
Hectoring Hector barfed,
>>>>> He just rightly assumed that anyone who assumed that Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick was in Canada was an idiot. <<<<<<
I made no such assumption, dunghill, though some non-idiots who are unfamiliar with Rutgers might make that assumption.
And his assumption that everyone knows that a Rutgers campus is located in a town named New Brunswick is really dumb.
>>>>>> You have no credibility, as you amply demonstrate here. <<<<<<
As I said, I don't need credibility, bozo, because most of my facts come from reliable sources.
Look at the amount of space you lousy trolls have wasted here over a minor misconception on my part -- and in any case I was correct in pointing out that just saying that Rutgers is in New Brunswick could be misinterpreted. This is one-upmanship. You are harping on this trivial error because you have nothing worthwhile to say -- and of course you can never make an error yourself because you never say anything worthwhile but only make insults and ad hominem attacks. You lousy trolls are just angry because I am always kicking your butts through the goalposts. And you lousy trolls are just jealous because you don't have the diligence or the brains to run a blog.
<< I don't need credibility >>
How fortunate!
>>>>> << I don't need credibility
How fortunate! <<<<<<
How unfortunate for you trolls, as you cannot attack my writings on the basis of a charge that I lack credibility.
I'm going to restate my deleted comment.
Larry wrote, "You broke the rule first, dunghill."
How old are you? Like five or something?
> And his assumption that everyone knows that a Rutgers campus is located in a town named New Brunswick is really dumb. <
I would have thought that anyone who believed that Rutgers University, New Brunswick is not in New Brunswick is really dumb. Even dumber would be a fool that thought that was New Brunswick, Canada and than ran off without even checking it out.
Larry, when you are in a hole, stop digging.
> I don't need credibility, bozo, because most of my facts come from reliable sources. <
Which you then misinterpret.
Well, well, well, look who is the kettle calling the pot black here.
ViU barfed,
>>>>>> I would have thought that anyone who believed that Rutgers University, New Brunswick is not in New Brunswick is really dumb. <<<<<<
And I would have thought that anyone who thought that a judge -- even a judge as stupid as Judge Jones -- told a newspaper that he was going to follow the law in making his decision is really dumb.
>>>>> Even dumber would be a fool that thought that was New Brunswick, Canada and than ran off without even checking it out. <<<<<<
Even dumber would be a fool that thought that the judge really said that to a newspaper, and then ran off without even checking it out (as we know, Judge Jones told the newspaper that the school board election results would not affect his decision).
A big reason why people make mistakes, dunghill, is that they don't know that they are making mistakes and don't know why they are making mistakes. This includes you, bozo. And I was correct in pointing out that just saying that Rutgers is in New Brunswick would mislead a lot of people who don't know that Rutgers is in New Jersey.
>>>>> Larry, when you are in a hole, stop digging. <<<<<<
I am digging a hole for burying you alive, dunghill.
>>>>>> I don't need credibility, bozo, because most of my facts come from reliable sources. <
Which you then misinterpret. <<<<<<<
And saying that a judge told a newspaper that he was going to follow the law when he actually said that the school board election results would not affect his decision is not a misinterpretation?
Look at the amount of space that you lousy trolls have wasted here by harping on my minor error. This is a perfect example of one-upmanship.
Jim Sherwood said...
"Pandas" is an old ID book with some defects, so it's no marvel that the Darwinists like to pretend that it expresses the views of most present-day ID advocates. But they will have a hard time keeping up that pretence, as new books on ID are published. Behe's book The Edge of Evolution was published last year, along with The Design of Life by Dembski and Wells, and The Design Matrix by the pseudonymous "Mike Gene."
I believe that the book "Pandas" was attacked is because that is the one written to be a school textbook.
Also in it's first draft the words "creation" and "creator" where used. To change it from a creationist book to an ID book all that was done was cut out those 2 words and replace them with "design/designed" and "designer". Pretty damned difficult to claim that ID is not creationism against that evidence.
Stephen Elliott
>>>>>>I believe that the book "Pandas" was attacked is because that is the one written to be a school textbook. <<<<<
Actually, I think it was attacked because it was the book chosen by the Dover school board -- of course, that choice may be related to the fact that it may be the only ID book written as a textbook. But for various reasons it is obvious that it turned out to be a very bad choice.
>>>>>> Also in it's first draft the words "creation" and "creator" where used. To change it from a creationist book to an ID book all that was done was cut out those 2 words and replace them with "design/designed" and "designer". <<<<<<
I think that the main word substitution was "intelligent design" for "creationism."
>>>>>> Pretty damned difficult to claim that ID is not creationism against that evidence. <<<<<<
It is ridiculous to judge ID on the basis of a single book. And as Jim Sherwood pointed out, it is an old book (the most recent edition was published in 1993), and it therefore does not have the latest ideas about ID. Anyway, the courts should declare the evolution controversy to be non-justiciable -- it's like trying to rule on the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Larry Fafarman said...
>>>>>>I believe that the book "Pandas" was attacked is because that is the one written to be a school textbook. <<<<<
Actually, I think it was attacked because it was the book chosen by the Dover school board -- of course, that choice may be related to the fact that it may be the only ID book written as a textbook...
Which is pretty much what I was trying to say.
>>>>>> Also in it's first draft the words "creation" and "creator" where used. To change it from a creationist book to an ID book all that was done was cut out those 2 words and replace them with "design/designed" and "designer". <<<<<<
I think that the main word substitution was "intelligent design" for "creationism."
OK. I will agree.
>>>>>> Pretty damned difficult to claim that ID is not creationism against that evidence. <<<<<<
It is ridiculous to judge ID on the basis of a single book. And as Jim Sherwood pointed out, it is an old book (the most recent edition was published in 1993), and it therefore does not have the latest ideas about ID. Anyway, the courts should declare the evolution controversy to be non-justiciable -- it's like trying to rule on the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
I dissagree. The school board where trying to sneak creationism into the school science class. ID is not being judged on that book alone, there is a lot of corroborating evidence.
Name 1 ID experiment that has been carried out using the scientific method. The reason this went to court is that some people want stuff that is not scientific in the science class. If ID was science the case would never have happened because no-one would be trying to teach it. Scientists would be researching it and carrying out/devising experiments and producing peer reviewed work.
Should it then stand up to scrutiny it might start being taught at university, once well established it would make it into school level science class (maybe; depending upon how difficult/foundational it was).
Stephen Elliott
Post a Comment
<< Home