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.

Saturday, June 19, 2010

Darwinists fabricate a controversy in order to declare a showy victory

The National Center for Science Education has the story here. Rober Crowther comments on Evolution News & Views,

No news continues to make news. Or maybe it's agenda driven reporting making up news? Either way, this article trumpets the fact that Nebraskans need not worry that evolution will be replaced with intelligent design in science classes. Of course, that wasn't being suggested and discussed anyhow. So, here's a case of the media taking no news and goosing it into a "news" story.

Three members of the Nebraska Board of Education say they're not aware of any effort by board members or the public to include intelligent design in Nebraska's new science standards.

"I've had zero contact from anyone," said board member Robert Evnen of Lincoln, who is on a committee reviewing the standards.

Why is not being asked to do something that nobody is talking about doing worth reporting on?


I have news for those members of the Nebraska Board of Education: even in those hotbeds of creationism, Texas and Kansas, there were no organized attempts to add the words "intelligent design" to the curriculum. Instead, there were efforts to add terms like "strengths and weaknesses." Only in Dover, PA, did a naive school board offcially use the term "intelligent design." That term needs to be avoided because people immediately start asking "who is the intelligent designer," "what does the intelligent designer look like," etc..

I propose the following sensational news headline:

No Angry Mob of Bible-Pounding, Holy-Rolling Creationist Fundies with Pitchforks March on Nebraska Board of Education Demanding that Evolution be Replaced with Biblical Creationism

Labels:

11 Comments:

Blogger Rupert said...

'...there were no organized attempts to add the words "intelligent design" to the curriculum' - of course not. Everyone knows that that is wingnuttery and the amount of opposition it would generate would stymie it.

Using terms like "strengths and weaknesses" however, generally lets things slide through.

Because only science is to be taught in science classes, not religion.

'No Angry Mob of Bible-Pounding, Holy-Rolling Creationist Fundies with Pitchforks March on Nebraska Board of Education Demanding that Evolution be Replaced with Biblical Creationism' - no, they operate in a much more subtle, sneaky and underhanded manner. We see it happening in many areas.

Sunday, June 20, 2010 5:05:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Rupert barfed,
>>>>>>> '...there were no organized attempts to add the words "intelligent design" to the curriculum' - of course not. Everyone knows that that is wingnuttery and the amount of opposition it would generate would stymie it. <<<<<<<

Like Robert Crowther said, "Why is not being asked to do something that nobody is talking about doing worth reporting on?"


>>>>>>>>'No Angry Mob of Bible-Pounding, Holy-Rolling Creationist Fundies with Pitchforks March on Nebraska Board of Education Demanding that Evolution be Replaced with Biblical Creationism' - no, they operate in a much more subtle, sneaky and underhanded manner.<<<<<<

You completely missed my point, bozo -- I was just giving an extreme example of the kind of reporting Crowther was talking about. Sheeeesh.

Monday, June 21, 2010 6:10:00 PM  
Blogger Rupert said...

Oh sheeeesh yourself!
OK, I'll back off.

Just remember, we always need to be on the alert for the underhanded actions of the creationists/evangelicals trying to pursue their agenda.

Monday, June 21, 2010 10:18:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From the article -

"In 2002, the Nebraska board rejected a push to include intelligent design in state standards. Then, in 2006, three candidates for the board who favored including intelligent design or creationism in the standards were defeated — though after respectable showings at the polls."

What Crowther neglected to report was that it had been "suggested and discussed" fairly recently, at least according to the article.

"Man doesn't bite dog" is not a newsworthy story. "Man stops biting dog" is a newsworthy story.

Wednesday, June 23, 2010 11:35:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Anonymous said,

>>>>>>>From the article -

"In 2002, the Nebraska board rejected a push to include intelligent design in state standards. Then, in 2006, three candidates for the board who favored including intelligent design or creationism in the standards were defeated — though after respectable showings at the polls."

What Crowther neglected to report was that it had been "suggested and discussed" fairly recently, at least according to the article. <<<<<

OK, if you want to call 2002 and 2006 "fairly recently." And your above quote from the Omaha World-Herald article was ignored by the NCSE article. Also, please note that the three losing pro-ID/creationism candidates made "respectable showings at the polls," according to the article.

I detest that term "intelligent design" and wish that the term would not be used. The term has become just a catch-all straw man for all scientific and pseudoscientific criticisms of evolution. In fact, I originally called my arguments about co-evolution "non-ID arguments against evolution" because co-evolution can be a problem for evolution even where the individual traits do not appear to be intelligently designed. In co-evolution (roughly defined as adaptations to other organisms as opposed to adaptation to the physical environment, though there is some question about whether co-evolution should be defined as mutual adaptation), unlike in adaptation to widespread fixed physical features of the environment, e.g., air and water, there may be nothing to adapt to because the corresponding trait in the other kind of organism may be initially absent -- this can be a problem even where the individual traits do not give the appearance of being intelligently designed. And some kinds of co-evolution go beyond simple "design" and give the appearance of "reverse engineering" (Carl Zimmer's term) -- for example, some parasites do not merely kill or paralyze their hosts but invade the hosts' nervous systems and make dramatic changes in the hosts' behavior. So what we have is not just "intelligent design" but something greatly more sophisticated: "intelligent reverse engineering."

Friday, June 25, 2010 11:00:00 AM  
Blogger Kiwi said...

Just came across your blog maybe fourty-five ago and I've been reading a few of your latest posts. And I must say, the vitriol with which you attack anyone who disagrees with you is frightening. Are their opinions really that threatening to you? Or do you just hold immesurable contempt for anyone who dares contradict you?

Call me a doofus or a bozo or whatever, I don't care. Go ahead and hate me and everyone who argues with you. It doesn't make any difference to me. You will think you are right, as you obviously always are, and the rest of the world is filled with morons and nitwits. And you won't make a bit of difference.

You can scream from your internet rooftop how Darwinists are screwing up this country, and how separation of church and state is complete BS, and that anyone who actually believes that the Holocaust occurred is a blind idiot, but the world will keep spinning. Evolution will continue being taught in schools, Holocaust memorials will keep being built, and the world will dismiss you and your ideas as crackpot. All you have is the cold satisfaction of your self-rightiousness, unable to admit that everyone, even yourself, is occasionally wrong.

I'm sorry for whatever life has done to you to turn you into this sad, bitter little man. I pity you, and I beg you, please, re-examine yourself. Reasonable people can have differing opinions, and what you are doing cannot be healthy for you.

Sunday, June 27, 2010 12:44:00 AM  
Anonymous Michael said...

Darwinists declared war on creationism and the modern intelligent design movement!

Inserting "weakness" in theories that favor evolution, is what the likes of NCSE claims to be "creationism" or "intelligent design" coming in through the back door...lol

This why they get paid the big bucks to do, influence public policy with a focus cause to try and sway public opinion by using "Darwinian evolution."

Now we can put "strengths and weakness" to the test for those who claim it "lets things slide through." Have you anything from that State who passed it last year?

Monday, June 28, 2010 11:24:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

[OK, if you want to call 2002 and 2006 "fairly recently."]

Seeing as those were the last two times the science standards were a topic in Nebraska, recent is an apt description.

[And your above quote from the Omaha World-Herald article was ignored by the NCSE article.]

So what? They linked to the story, and the NCSE said creationism, which is much more inclusive than ID. Crowther and you attacked the newspaper's reporting, not the NCSE story, and that did have the information as to why ID was a story.

[Also, please note that the three losing pro-ID/creationism candidates made "respectable showings at the polls," according to the article.]

Why, thank you for noticing a point I made. I included that portion of the quote for a reason - ID in science classes had been suggested and discussed, and was respectably supported at the polls, contrary to Crowther's assertions.

[I detest that term "intelligent design" and wish that the term would not be used. The term has become just a catch-all straw man for all scientific and pseudoscientific criticisms of evolution.]

I prefer creationism myself. It captures the thrust of almost all anti-evolution. The vast majority of criticisms and support for those criticisms are religiously motivated. Without that religious support, the anti-evolution movement would be so small as to not even be a blip on the radar, about as popular as the anti-relativity movement.

[In fact, I originally called my arguments about co-evolution "non-ID arguments against evolution" because co-evolution can be a problem for evolution even where the individual traits do not appear to be intelligently designed. In co-evolution (roughly defined as adaptations to other organisms as opposed to adaptation to the physical environment, though there is some question about whether co-evolution should be defined as mutual adaptation), unlike in adaptation to widespread fixed physical features of the environment, e.g., air and water, there may be nothing to adapt to because the corresponding trait in the other kind of organism may be initially absent -- this can be a problem even where the individual traits do not give the appearance of being intelligently designed.]

Do you then agree with the position that cosmology can be a problem for physics. After all, there may exist planets or even stars in other solar systems made of materials that can't be explained by the standard model of stellar evolution.

But you seem to regard this as some sort of weakness, which baffles me. In science, this is called falsifiability, and it is generally considered a hallmark of good science. A well-developed theory should only be consistent with a subset of all possible observations. That some observations not consistent with that theory are conceivable allows that theory to be tested. This is a good thing; a strength, not a weakness.

Tuesday, June 29, 2010 9:33:00 AM  
Blogger Jim Sherwood said...

"Intelligent design" may be an ill-defined concept as it is commonly used, but those who are referred to as ID proponents are doing an excellent job of debunking the pseudoscientific gibberish of the Darwinists. The Darwin-fans then make an amusing display of their massive ignorance by using such false and misleading rhetoric as "the anti-evolution movement" and insisting that all who are involved in ID are "creationists."

While quite a few "ID proponents" are creationists, others believe that humans descended from extinct ape-like ancestors, that all life descended from a common ancestor, and that chance and natural selection played some role in such descent. There are also "ID proponents" who think that the intelligence involved arose by natural causes, that it was not supernatural.

So "intelligent design proponents" are sometimes "evolutionists" in a very proper sense of the word. They just are never Darwinists.

Thursday, July 01, 2010 6:43:00 PM  
Blogger Rupert said...

But what do they believe to be the starting point Jim?

Friday, July 02, 2010 3:20:00 PM  
Blogger Whateverman said...

Jim doesn't discuss his ideas. He just comments and ignores the responses. Does the exact same thing on his blog (with the caveat that preventing people from commenting is roughly the same thing).

Jim likes seeing his ideas in print. He doesn't care whether they make sense or not.

Monday, July 05, 2010 6:03:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home