RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (29) < ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... >   
  Topic: Discussing "Explore Evolution", Have at it.< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,12:01   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 01 2007,08:56)
Albatrossity2 - may I suggest a way of dealing with your frustration, and helping Lenny too.  You're going to become increasingly steamed up, so any time you feel like throwing it away, do so in the direction of Florida.  Then continue reading from where it lands.  Let's see if you finish the book or the delivery first.

Bob

Thanks for the suggestion. Luckily it is a short book, or I might end up in Florida eventually...

For Paul Nelson - The press release for this book says, in part      
Quote
...Explore Evolution was peer-reviewed by biology faculty at both state and private universities, teachers with experience in both AP and pre-AP life science courses, and doctoral scientists working for industry and government. The textbook has been pilot-tested in classes at both the secondary and college levels

As a reviewer for countless introductory biology textbooks that are used at both the high school and college level, and a major reviewer for a new edition of Starr's Biology: Concepts and Applications, I am interested in knowing who these reviewers and testers might be. In general these individuals and their institutions are named in the front matter of the textbook. In the book we currently use, in fact, that list takes up an entire page, in small type. So I have two simple questions.

1) Why didn't you acknowledge the reviewers and testers in the front matter of the book? I suspect that they put in a lot of work, and an acknowledgment would be appreciated.

2) Is a list of reviewers and testers available anywhere?

Thanks in advance.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4468
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,13:32   

Interesting bit from UD about how to cite critics of an idea:

Quote

4] Citing a string of critics on one side of a debate among research level scientists as though they have the last word is obviously an improper appeal to authority.


Yet this is exactly what "Explore Evolution" does over and over... it gives the antievolutionists the last word concerning topic after topic.

For those looking for it, let's say it: "Projection."

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,17:28   

Day 2. I should have left this one for Lenny, but it was easy, and I had lots of other things to do today.

As expected, Haeckel's embryos make an appearance (p. 67). As expected, these straw-critters are trotted out in the "Case For" section, so that the the authors can express outrage at these fakes, and so that the straw-critters can be ritually slaughtered in the "Reply" section. As expected, Icons of Evolution is cited, and Wells' opus is referred to in a footnote (8) to this sentence
       
Quote
According to some critics of the standard embryology argument, the evidence strongly suggests that biologists should re-evaluate whether all animals shared a common ancestor.

It is interesting that Wells, a singular author, is multiplied into "some critics". But I'm sure they could find other critics. They just might not be biologists. Of course, there is no mention of the silliness of their conclusion that a single debunked (by scientists, incidentally) figure can trump all of the other evidence from developmental biology. Perhaps the student is expected to take it from here in the standard "inquiry-based" model. But, as noted before, errors of omission like that don't make it easy for a student to go much further...

The expected refrain also appears
       
Quote
This error even crept into the Encyclopedia Brittanica, and remains in many modern high school and college biology textbooks.
.
They mention two textbooks in a footnote, Raven and Johnson 2002, and Futuyama's Evolutionary Biology 1999. I don't have a copy of either book, not do I have a copy of that other noted biology textbook (the EB), but I did happen to have 21 different intro biology textbooks on the shelves in my office; publication dates ranged from 1983-2007. So I did some actual research.

Two of them mentioned Haeckel and the "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" conclusion, and showed a version of his original figure. Both of these (Guttman's Biology 1999 and McFadden and Keeton (1995) correctly noted in the text that this conclusion is not valid and that Haeckel over-interpreted his data. One other (Starr and Taggart, 4/e, 1987) mentioned only the conclusion without showing the offensive figure. This text also correctly pointed out that Haeckel's conclusion is not accepted any longer.

Let's see. Three out of 21 = 14%, hardly a majority. And none of the three tried to convince students that Haeckel was right. Not quite the problem that the book sets up, is it?

Can you make sure that this strawman is removed from the second printing, Paul?

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,19:13   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 01 2007,17:28)
Day 2. I should have left this one for Lenny

Well, let me clear about what I'll be doing:  if this book is to survive in court, it MUST, absolutely MUST, differentiate itself from creation "science" AND from intelligent design "theory" (both of which have already been ruled illegal by the courts).

So my task, as I see it, is to trace the geneology and history of every argument the book presents, to demonstrate where it is just a re-hashed version of previous creationist and/or ID "scientific arguments".

So far, I've not even seen the book, and I already know that the whole crapola about therapsid diaphragms and bones is just a re-hashed version of the same arguments presented decades ago in Duane Gish's "Evolution? The Fossils Say No!".

Add that to the fact that two of the book's authors are IDers, and one is a YECer, and it certainly doesn't look like this book will stand a snowball's chance in hell, once it gets to court.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,19:20   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 01 2007,17:28)
         
Quote
According to some critics of the standard embryology argument, the evidence strongly suggests that biologists should re-evaluate whether all animals shared a common ancestor.

Of the six characteristics of creation "science" cited in the 1981 Arkansas law that was struck down by Judge Overton, two of these were:

--the insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about the development of all living kinds from a single organism

and

--changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals


The one sentence quoted here would seem to fit both of these.


I'm assuming that this characteristic of creation "science" is also covered somewhere in the book:

--separate ancestry for man and apes



I ain't even read the book yet, and can *already* see that it is DOA in any courtroom in the United States of America.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,19:34   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 01 2007,12:01)
 
Quote
...Explore Evolution was peer-reviewed by biology faculty at both state and private universities, teachers with experience in both AP and pre-AP life science courses, and doctoral scientists working for industry and government.

Can I safely assume that one of these, uh, peer-reviewers was Bryan Leonard, the, uh, "education expert" who testified for the IDers at the Kansas Kangaroo Kourt . . . .  ?

(snicker)  (giggle)

And didn't Behe testify at Dover that his book was, uh, "peer-reviewed" too . . . ?

BWA HA HA !!!!!!!


Geez, even earthworms are capable of learning from previous experience.

Creationists, apparently, aren't that bright.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
stevestory



Posts: 8865
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,19:39   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 01 2007,18:28)
The expected refrain also appears
         
Quote
This error even crept into the Encyclopedia Brittanica, and remains in many modern high school and college biology textbooks.
.
They mention two textbooks in a footnote, Raven and Johnson 2002, and Futuyama's Evolutionary Biology 1999. I don't have a copy of either book, not do I have a copy of that other noted biology textbook (the EB), but I did happen to have 21 different intro biology textbooks on the shelves in my office; publication dates ranged from 1983-2007. So I did some actual research.

Two of them mentioned Haeckel and the "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" conclusion, and showed a version of his original figure. Both of these (Guttman's Biology 1999 and McFadden and Keeton (1995) correctly noted in the text that this conclusion is not valid and that Haeckel over-interpreted his data. One other (Starr and Taggart, 4/e, 1987) mentioned only the conclusion without showing the offensive figure. This text also correctly pointed out that Haeckel's conclusion is not accepted any longer.

Let's see. Three out of 21 = 14%, hardly a majority. And none of the three tried to convince students that Haeckel was right. Not quite the problem that the book sets up, is it?

Can you make sure that this strawman is removed from the second printing, Paul?

No wonder Paul doesn't want to talk here.

   
someotherguy



Posts: 367
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,20:36   

I do have a copy of the third edition of Evolutionary Biology by Douglas Futuyma.  There is a hand-drawn picture of various embryoes taken from Romanes, 1901--which I believe was taken from Haeckel--but the caption does not even refer to Haeckel, instead it uses the pictures to describe van Baer's Law.

Notably, this picture comes in the midst of a section of text (pgs. 652-653) that decribes Haeckel's ideas, but then goes on to debunk them at some length.

--------------
Evolander in training

  
someotherguy



Posts: 367
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,20:58   

Quote (someotherguy @ Aug. 01 2007,20:36)
I do have a copy of the third edition of Evolutionary Biology by Douglas Futuyma.  There is a hand-drawn picture of various embryoes taken from Romanes, 1901--which I believe was taken from Haeckel--but the caption does not even refer to Haeckel, instead it uses the pictures to describe van Baer's Law.

Notably, this picture comes in the midst of a section of text (pgs. 652-653) that decribes Haeckel's ideas, but then goes on to debunk them at some length.

For anybody who is interested, I've scanned the two pages that contain the embryo image and the context of the discussion.




Note especially the text on the bottom of the 1st page and also the caption text.

--------------
Evolander in training

  
stevestory



Posts: 8865
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,23:25   

Section 4 on the second pages is also pretty good.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,07:22   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 01 2007,19:39)
No wonder Paul doesn't want to talk here.

Think he'll show up in court?

Think he'll testify that he agrees with all six of the characteristics of "creation science"?

(snicker)  (giggle)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,07:54   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 02 2007,07:22)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 01 2007,19:39)
No wonder Paul doesn't want to talk here.

Think he'll show up in court?

Think he'll testify that he agrees with all six of the characteristics of "creation science"?

(snicker)  (giggle)

It would be even more entertaining to get Wells on a witness stand under oath. Unfortunately, since he is mysteriously  NOT one of the authors of this textbook, that probably won't happen...

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Steverino



Posts: 407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,19:36   

These people absolutely crack me up.  They live in a totally different reality.

They just can't see that the entire world is laughing behind their backs.

What's interesting is, one does not have to be a scientist to see they are full of shit.  One just had to examine their logic to know, they are full of shit.

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,20:48   

Just got my first look at the tome today.  I can sum up my feelings in one word:

BWA HA HA HA HA HA AH AH A !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


If these retards think they can fool any Federal Judge anywhere in the United States of America with this, then they are even MORE deluded and desperate than I thought they were --- and I already thought they were pretty damn deluded and desperate.

Yes, folks, every typical creationist/ID argument you've heard in the past 40 years, is in here.  "Cambrian Explosion".  "Abrupt Appearence (yes, they were indeed stupid enough to use ***that very phrase***, repeatedly)".  "Fossil Gaps".   "Created Kinds".  "Microevolution and Macroevolution".  "Bats have no fossil ancestors".  "Flowering plants appear suddenly".  "Common structures are the result of common function".  "Common structures are just convergence".  "Haeckel's drawings show that darwinists are liars".  "Mutation and natural selection can't produce new structures".  "Peppered moths were faked".  "DNA can only change within fixed limits". "Evolution is just an assumption".  "Biological information cannot increase".  "No new genetic information".  "No beneficial mutations".  "Goldschmidt's monster".  "Behe and the flagellum".  "Irreducible complexity".  "Evolution is a tautology".  "The big bad scientific establishment crushes dissent".

Indeed, the entire fossil discussion is straight out of Gish's "Evolution? The Fossils Say No!".  The whole Introduction is one big long AiG "were you there?" discussion.  The "A New Challenge" section is all about "Intelligent Design Theory", without ever mentioning the name (I expect that Dover had something to do with that, right Paul?).

Give me the weekend, and I'll link all of these to their previously published creationist/ID ancestors.  While ALL of these are standard ICR/AiG/DI boilerplate, some of them I literally haven't heard in 20 years, so it'll take some digging to find them again in print.



Paul, do you REALLY think you can convince a judge that this pile of crap isn't just creationism/ID?  Really and truly?


(sigh)  What a tard.  No wonder you doofi keep losing court cases.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
stevestory



Posts: 8865
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,20:59   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 03 2007,21:48)
Just got my first look at the tome today.  I can sum up my feelings in one word:

BWA HA HA HA HA HA AH AH A !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


If these retards think they can fool any Federal Judge anywhere in the United States of America with this, then they are even MORE deluded and desperate than I thought they were --- and I already thought they were pretty damn deluded and desperate.

Yes, folks, every typical creationist/ID argument you've heard in the past 40 years, is in here.

Lenny, you just warmed my heart.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,21:13   

One problem I face----years ago, I stole copies of Morris's "Scientific Creationism" and Gish's "Evolution? The Fossils Say No!" by photocopying the entire books in the library (I don't want to give the bastards any of my money).  Alas, when I moved to Florida eleven years ago, I lost a box in transit --- and it contained my photocopied books.

Those two books, between them, contain virtually every creationist argument of any significance made throughout the 70's and 80's (and I recall seeing many of "Explore Evolution"'s arguments in them).

So if anyone out there has a copy of these books handy (or can steal one somewhere without getting caught), let me know.  I absolutely recall the whole "therapsids diaphragm" BS being discussed therein, and I'm pretty sure the turtle shell thingie is there too.

On the other hand, ICR has all its "Acts and Facts" crapola online, and those are all just regurgitated bits and pieces of Morris and Gish's standard boilerplate arguments.  So I'm pretty sure I can tie every argument made in EE to some piece or another that ran in "Acts and Facts" years ago.

It's the same old crap.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
stevestory



Posts: 8865
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2007,00:08   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 03 2007,21:48)
Yes, folks, every typical creationist/ID argument you've heard in the past 40 years, is in here.



I am shocked! Shocked, to discover that 4 creationists from the creationist PR-tank have produced a book full of creationism!

   
afarensis



Posts: 1003
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2007,08:48   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 03 2007,21:13)
One problem I face----years ago, I stole copies of Morris's "Scientific Creationism" and Gish's "Evolution? The Fossils Say No!" by photocopying the entire books in the library (I don't want to give the bastards any of my money).  Alas, when I moved to Florida eleven years ago, I lost a box in transit --- and it contained my photocopied books.

Those two books, between them, contain virtually every creationist argument of any significance made throughout the 70's and 80's (and I recall seeing many of "Explore Evolution"'s arguments in them).

So if anyone out there has a copy of these books handy (or can steal one somewhere without getting caught), let me know.  I absolutely recall the whole "therapsids diaphragm" BS being discussed therein, and I'm pretty sure the turtle shell thingie is there too.

On the other hand, ICR has all its "Acts and Facts" crapola online, and those are all just regurgitated bits and pieces of Morris and Gish's standard boilerplate arguments.  So I'm pretty sure I can tie every argument made in EE to some piece or another that ran in "Acts and Facts" years ago.

It's the same old crap.

The lung argument is in Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record - a later edition of Evolution: The Fossils Say No. I have not been able to find the turtle argument in either edition, so it may be in the Morris book.

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2007,11:27   

Quote (afarensis @ Aug. 04 2007,08:48)
The lung argument is in Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record - a later edition of Evolution: The Fossils Say No. I have not been able to find the turtle argument in either edition, so it may be in the Morris book.

Thanks.

The turtle thingie may be in one of the old ICR Impact articles.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2007,11:36   

Taking the quickest method, I've begun cross-checking the statements in the tome with the standard creationist/ICR boilerplate enumerated in the Index of Creationist Claims.

So far, just in the three-page Preface, we get:

“The theory of evolution remains the focus of intense public controversy.  So what’s all the controversy about?”
CA041 “Teach the Controversy”, CA201 “Evolution is only a theory”


“We hope this book will help you understand what contemporary Darwinian theory is, why many scientific find it persuasive, and why other scientists question key aspects of it.”
CA041 “Teach the Controversy”, CA111 “Many current scientists reject evolution”, CA112 “Many scientists find problems with evolution”, CI001 “Intelligent Design theory is scientific”

“It allows you to evaluate answers to scientific questions on your own and form your own conclusions”.
CA041 “teach the controversy”, CI001 “Intelligent Design theory is scientific”

“Teaching scientific ideas openly and critically not only helps prepare you for possible careers in science, but it helps you learn to make informed decisions about such issues.”
CA041, “teach the controversy”, CI001 “Intelligent Design theory is scientific”

“This allows you to do what scientists do – think and argue about how best to interpret evidence.”
CA230 “Interpreting evidence is not the same as observation”, CA230.1 “Evolutionists interpret evidence on the basis of their preconceptions”

“United States federal education policy, for example, calls for teaching students about competing views of controversial scientific issues.  As the US Congress has stated, “[W]here topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution) the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of views that exist”.  FOOTNOTE: This statement occurs in the authoritative conference report language of the No Child Left Behind federal education act.”
CA041.1 “Federal law (Santorum Amendment) supports teaching alternatives”

(Note also that this statement is a flat-out deceptive lie ---- not only is the conference report NOT "authoritative", in fact it has no legal authority whatsoever, but teaching creationism and ID is illegal under Federal law.  Period.)  


“Throughout this book, you will discover that there are, indeed, important scientific controversies about the key claims of evolutionary theory and about the arguments used to support them.”
CA111 “Many current scientists reject evolution”, CA112 “Many scientists find problems with evolution”, CI001 “Intelligent Design theory is scientific”

“We have written this book, in part, so that you could learn about the controversial aspects of evolutionary theory that are discussed openly in scientific books and journals but which are not widely reported in textbooks.
CA041 “teach the controversy”, CA320 “Scientists are pressured not to challenge established dogma”, CI001 “Intelligent Design theory is scientific”

“For each argument in Darwin’s case, we will begin by explaining the argument, and examining the evidence in support of it. (We call this the Case For.)  Then, we will spend some time examining the claims and evidence that lead some scientists to question the argument.  (We call this the Reply.) We then look at the current state of the discussion in a section called “Further Debate”.
CA510 “Creationism and evolution are the only 2 models”, CA510.1 “Problems with evolution are evidence for creation”

“The Reply section has not yet been presented in most school textbooks.”
CA230 “scientists are pressured not to challenge established dogma”.

“As you will find throughout this book, there are qualified, respected scientists on both sides of each argument.”
CA041 “teach the controversy”, CA111 “Many current scientists reject evolution”, CA112 “Many scientists find problems with evolution”, CI001 “Intelligent Design theory is scientific”

“We don’t want you to simply accept this book as the last word on this subject any more than we’d want you to uncritically accept the word of other textbooks that present only the case for Darwinian evolution.”
CA041 “teach the controversy”, CA320 “Scientists are pressured not to challenge established dogma”




The one phrase in the Preface that leaped right out at me, though, was this one:

“This makes for exciting viewing, but is not always helpful in finding answers to the real questions in the origins debate”.


That word "origins" is significant.  It ties, I believe, this book directly to not only creationism and ID, but specifically to their previous legal attempts to introduce creationism and ID into public school science classrooms, since the phrases "origins science" and "origins debate" is not used in any scientific sense and does not appear in any scientific papers or textbooks --- but it appears EVERYWHERE in creationist/ID tracts and in their legal arguments, where it has a very specific meaning for the anti-evolutionists (a meaning held by no other political, religious or educational group).

I am in the process of tracking down a couple references that I recall, and will post more when I'm done.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1006
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2007,11:38   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 04 2007,11:27)
Quote (afarensis @ Aug. 04 2007,08:48)
The lung argument is in Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record - a later edition of Evolution: The Fossils Say No. I have not been able to find the turtle argument in either edition, so it may be in the Morris book.

Thanks.

The turtle thingie may be in one of the old ICR Impact articles.

There's this from NCSE, which includes a copy of the cover page from a 1982 issue of Creation/Evolution:


--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2007,11:45   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Aug. 04 2007,11:38)

Nice.  Note the date -- 1982.

Wherever possible, when tying EE's claims to creationist claims, I am trying to tie it to pre-Aguillard sources, and when tying EE to ID claims, I'm trying to tie it to pre-Dover sources.  The reason -- I want to demonstrate that despite all the cosmetic changes that the anti-evolution movement has made in response to various losses in court, the very same "scientific arguments" continued, unchanged, right from the very beginning, whether they are being used to present "the alternative scientific theory of creation science" or "the alternative scientific theory of intelligent design" or "the scientific controversy over evolution" or "the scientific arguments against evolution". It's all the same crap.  And EE is just more of the same.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2007,12:25   

Sorry for the length of this:


OK.  On the first page of the preface of "Explore Evolution", in the second paragraph, we find the sentence " “This makes for exciting viewing, but is not always helpful in finding answers to the real questions in the origins debate”.

That phrase "origins debate" is significant -- it (along with its companion phrase "origins science") ties this book directly not only to the creationist/ID movement, but specifically to previous legal attempts to push religiously-motivated criticisms of evolution into classrooms.

The phrase "origins science" or "origins debate" or "origins model" does not occur in scientific papers, or in scientific textbooks.  But it appears extensively in creation "science" and intelligent design "theory" literature, a history that goes back over 30 years -- in ICR Impact June 1, 1973, Duane Gish writes, “To restrict the teaching concerning origins to a single theory, that of organic evolution, and to teach it as an established scientific fact, constitutes indoctrination in a humanistic religious philosophy. Such a procedure violates the Constitutional prohibition against the teaching of sectarian religious views just as clearly as if the teaching concerning origins were restricted to the Book of Genesis.”

The phrase has a very specific meanign to creationists -- a meaning that is used by them alone, and by no other education or sciecne group.  That meaning is explained by creationsit Jonathan Sarfati at the Answers In Genesis website:
Quote

“This fails to note the distinction between normal (operational) science, and origins or historical science. Normal (operational) science deals only with repeatable observable processes in the present, while origins science helps us to make educated guesses about origins in the past.”

“In contrast, evolution is a speculation about the unobservable and unrepeatable past. Thus it comes under origins science. Rather than observation, origins science uses the principles of causality (everything that has a beginning has a cause) and analogy (e.g. we observe that intelligence is needed to generate complex coded information in the present, so we can reasonably assume the same for the past). And because there was no material intelligent designer for life, it is legitimate to invoke a non-material designer for life. Creationists invoke the miraculous only for origins science, and as shown, this does not mean they will invoke it for operational science.”  (Jonathan Sarfati, “Who’s Really Pushing  ‘Bad Science’?”)



As used by creationists, "origins science" ties directly to the standard creationist "were you there?" argument, as well as to the "evolution and creation are just different interpretations of the same evidence" argument.  And, as Sarfati notes, the concept ties directly to their religious beliefs ("Creationists invoke the miraculous only for origins science").

For creationists, "origins science" and the "origins debate"  mean far more than just explanations of previous earth history -- it ties directly to their religious and moral worldview, and their religious and moral rejection of evolutionary biology:  

Quote
“Does what one believes about creation and evolution affect his or her worldview? Do origin assumptions provide a foundation upon which important moral questions are answered? Creationists have advanced the idea that what one believes about creation and evolution affects his or her worldview. For example, Morris [24] stated in the "When Two Worldviews Collide" videotape, "wrong thinking always begets wrong behavior and evolution is wrong thinking." Ham [14, p. 41] said, "there is a connection between origins and issues affecting society such as marriage, clothing, abortion, sexual deviancy, parental authority, etc." More directly, Barnes [5, p. 21] claims, "not only have many given away institutions of higher learning to the evolutionary establishment, but they are also giving away their own children to be trained in an evolutionary mind set. This is causing our children to abandon the traditional Judeo-Christian values upon which our society is founded." Morris and Morris [22, p. 12] state, "a person's philosophy of origins will inevitably determine sooner or later what he believes concerning his destiny, and even what he believes about the meaning and purpose of his life and actions right now in the present world" (emphasis added).”   (COMPARING ORIGINS BELIEF AND MORAL VIEWS , RICHARD L. OVERMAN, M.S., Presented at the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, Pittsburgh, PA, August 3-8, 1998)  



ICR still declares today that consideration of "origins" is vital to its religious message:  “The creation record is factual, historical and perspicuous; thus all theories of origins or development which involve evolution in any form are false.” (http://www.icr.org/home/faq/)


Given the religious importance of the idea of "origins", and the religious implications of the "origins debate", it's no surprise that this terminology is found in ICR's earliest attempts to legislate the inclusion of "origins science" in public school classrooms as creation "science":

Quote

"Evolution is science, creation is religion, we cannot have religion in the classroom." All too often this is the rule when it comes to the manner in which teachers perceive their role in the instruction of origins in the classroom. Fortunately, this type of thinking does not prevail in the majority of cases.”  

“A Two-Model Approach to Origins should not include sectarian religion for the public schools; the approach should base its emphasis on the interpretation of scientific data presently available. It is conceivable, even, desirable, that sectarian schools will embellish the scientific limits of the model by making open reference to biblical history. A Two-Model Approach, in essence, is significant only when students have had an opportunity to hear, see, or read, all pertinent data on topics relating to origins.”  A Two-Model Approach to Origins: A Curriculum Imperative, by Richard Bliss, Ph.D., ICR Impact June 1, 1976)



Quote

“Proposal To Anderson School District #5
Board Of Trustees
by Paul Ellwanger
03/14/78
Whereas, the Constitution prohibits government from infringing upon free exercise of an individual's religion, and
Whereas, an infringement occurs when a state program has content contrary to religious precepts, and
Whereas, exclusive instruction by public secondary and elementary schools in the general theory of evolution infringes upon the free exercise of creationist students and parents, and
Whereas, many citizens of this community believe in the special creation concept of origins and are convinced that exclusive indoctrination of their children in the evolutionary concept is inimical to their religious faith and to their moral and civic teachings, as well as to scientific objectivity, academic freedom, and civil rights, and
Whereas, even most citizens who are not opposed to the evolution concept at least favor a balanced treatment of these two alternative views of origins in their schools, so as to allow students to consider all of the evidences favoring each concept before deciding which to believe, and
Whereas, instruction in creation in a scientific context without use of the Bible would not violate the establishment clause of the Constitution, and
Whereas, there are now available, though quite limited in options, instructional material which do not expound the Bible in presenting creation science, but instead, employ scientific discussion by authors highly trained in science,
I hereby propose that the Board of Trustees of Anderson School District #5 take whatever steps necessary to have objectively presented in the public classrooms of District #5 a balanced treatment of evolution and creation in all courses and library materials dealing in any way with the subject of origins, such treatment to be limited to the scientific, rather than the religious aspects of the two concepts.
In the event this Board goes on record in favor of this proposal, I respectfully suggest ...
1. That only those instructional materials be considered which would supplement current State-adopted texts in providing unbiased information about these two explanations for origins.
2. That only instructional materials be considered for selection which give an objective and nondogmatic treatment of the creation model, so as not to violate the establishment clause of our Constitution.
The following resource/reference items are immediately available, upon request, and offered as a courtesy/convenience, from Paul Ellwanger, 2820 LeConte Road, Anderson, either as a complimentary copy or loan-item (as indicated): [This section is summarized as follows]
-  article by Bird6
-  an unpublished article by Gish, "Creation, Evolution and Public Education" (available from ICR)
-  a news article about Dr. John N. Moore and one of his Impact articles (No. 52, published October, 1977).
-  Impact article No. 51, September, 1977, by Henry Morris.
-  Impact article No. 36, June, 1976, by Richard Bliss.
-  the student's book, teacher’s guide, and transparencies entitled Origins: Two Models, Creation/Evolution by Richard Bliss.
-  Scientific Creationism, Public School Edition, by Henry Morris.”  (ICR Impact,  January 1, 1979, "Creation Science and the Local School District")




Quote

“[T]hose of creationist persuasion could maintain church-state separation in the same manner as an evolutionist teacher might, so long as they teach both views of origins and limit their approach to empirical evidence?”  (ICR Impact, March 1, 1981, Establishing Scientific Guidelines for Origins-Instruction in the Public Education, by Judith Tarr Harding)



Given the pervasive presence of "origins" language in ICR's effort to introduce creation 'science', it is no surprise that Act 590, the Arkansas law that introduced "balanced treatment" for "evolution science" and "creation science", was permeated by the same "origins" language:

Quote

Act 590 of 1981

"AN ACT TO REQUIRE BALANCED TREATMENT OF CREATION-SCIENCE AND EVOLUTION- SCIENCE IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS; TO PROTECT ACADEMIC FREEDOM BY PROVIDING STUDENT CHOICE; TO ENSURE FREEDOM OF RELIGIOUS EXERCISE; TO GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF BELIEF AND SPEECH; TO PREVENT ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION; TO PROHIBIT RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION CONCERNING ORIGINS

This Act does not require or permit instruction in any religious doctrine or materials. This Act does not require any instruction in the subject of origins, but simply requires instruction in both scientific models (of evolution-science and creation-science) if public schools choose to teach either.

Only evolution-science is presented to students in virtually all of those courses that discuss the subject of origins. Public schools generally censor creation-science and evidence contrary to evolution.

Public school presentation of only evolution-science without any alternative model of origins abridges the United States Constitution's protections of freedom of religious exercise and of freedom of belief and speech for students and parents, because it undermines their religious convictions and moral or philosophical values, compels their unconscionable professions of belief, and hinders religious training and moral training by parents.

Presentation of only one model rather than alternative scientific models of origins is not required by any compelling interest of the State

Creation-science is an alternative scientific model of origins and can be presented from a strictly scientific standpoint without any religious doctrine just as evolution-science can, because there are scientists who conclude that scientific data best support creation-science and because scientific evidences and inferences have been presented for creation-science.

Most citizens, whatever their religious beliefs about origins, favor balanced treatment in public schools of alternative scientific models of origins for better guiding students in their search for knowledge, and they favor a neutral approach toward subjects affecting the religious and moral and philosophical convictions of students."




And indeed ICR still uses this same "origins science" language to refer to bills requiring  that the "controversy over evolution" be taught:

Quote

“Earlier this year House Bill 481 was submitted to the Ohio State Assembly. The bill addresses the issue of teaching "origins science" in the Ohio public schools. The carefully crafted bill scrupulously follows the intent of recent Supreme Court decisions and attempts to implement the 2002 U.S. Education Bill, specifically its Santorum Amendment.
Quoting directly from HB 481:
It is the intent of the general assembly that to enhance the effectiveness of science education and to promote academic freedom and the neutrality of state government with respect to teachings that touch religious and non-religious beliefs, it is necessary and desirable that "origins science," which seeks to explain the origins of life and its diversity, be conducted and taught objectively and without religious, naturalistic, or philosophic bias or assumption. To further this intent, the instructional program provided by any school district or educational service center shall do all of the following:
(A) Encourage the presentation of scientific evidence regarding the origins of life and its diversity objectively and without religious, naturalistic, or philosophic bias or assumption;
(B) Require that whenever explanations regarding the origins of life are presented, appropriate explanation and disclosure shall be provided regarding the historical nature of origins science and the use of any material assumption which may have provided a basis for the explanation being presented;
© Encourage the development of curriculum that will help students think critically, understand the full range of scientific views that exist regarding the origins of life, and understand why origins science may generate controversy. “  (ICR Impact, Oct 1, 2002, Who Could Argue with Teaching Good Science? by John Morris, Ph.D.)


This same "origins debate" language was also quickly adopted by the Intelligent Design movement.  It is found on many existing ID websites:

Quote

Welcome to Origins. This site features scholarly and popular
resources concerning intelligent design and philosophical theism.

http://www.origins.org/



Quote
 “The TrueOrigin Archive comprises an intellectually honest  response to what in fairness can only be described as  evolutionism—the doctrine of strict philosophical naturalism as a necessary presupposition in matters of science history (i.e., origins).  This doctrine is abundantly evident in much material advocating the Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution origins model, including—but not limited to—the “Talk.Origins” newsgroup and the “Talk.Origins Archive” website. “

“The question of origins is plainly a matter of science history—not the domain of applied science.  Contrary to the unilateral denials of many evolutionists, one’s worldview does indeed play heavily on one’s interpretation of scientific data, a phenomenon that is magnified in matters concerning origins, where neither repeatability, nor observation, nor measurement—the three immutable elements of the scientific method—may be employed. “

http://www.trueorigin.org/




Quote
“This graphic shows the ideal way to practice origins science, where only the scientific method--not religion or naturalistic philosophy--is guiding the research.”

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/964
 




Quote

Intelligent Design Network:  “Seeking Objectivity in Origins Science”
Intelligent Design Network, Inc. is a nonprofit organization that seeks institutional objectivity in origins science.
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/





And finally, the very same "origins" language is found in legal arguments for the teaching of Intelligent Design 'theory' in schools:


Quote

Utah Law Review, 2000 39:1

“Teaching the Origins Controversy:
Science, Or Religion, Or Speech?”


David K. DeWolf
Stephen C. Meyer
Mark Edward DeForrest

www.arn.org/docs/dewolf/utah.pdf



Quote
 


Teaching Origins Science In Public Schools

John H. Calvert, J.D.
William S. Harris, Ph.D.
 
Published by Intelligent Design network, inc
Copyright © 2001 by Intelligent Design network, inc..
Subject: Legal Opinion Regarding the Teaching of Origins Science in Public Schools
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/legalopinion.htm


John H. Calvert, Esq.
Attorney at Law
460 Lake Shore Drive West                                                                                                               913-268-3778
Lake Quivira, Kansas 66217                                                                                                      
Fax: 913-268-0852
jcalvert@att.net
March 21, 2001
Intelligent Design network, inc.
P.O. Box 14702,
Shawnee Mission, Kansas 66285-4702
Ladies and Gentlemen,
You have requested my opinion as to how public schools may develop science curriculum regarding the teaching of biological origins (the origin of life and the origin of the diversity of life) in a way that is consistent with the Constitution of the United States. I will refer to this area of science as "origins science."
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/legalopinion.htm







So it's no surprise at all to see the same "origins" language re-appearing in EE.  It's the same meaning as before.  And, in the case of Meyer, it's the very same guy making the arguments.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1006
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2007,14:08   

As the evidence against EE mounts, it becomes more apparent that the DI is hoping for a sacrificial hick school board somewhere, and another religious advocacy law practice like Thomas More.  Only thing is, when the inevitable lawsuit is filed, the DI won't be able sneak away like they did at Dover.  I think this thread should go a long way towards giving them second thoughts about the whole thing. Unless, of course, they're able to solicit the services of Joe G, who will provide devastating cross examination of plaintiff experts, and win the day.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2007,14:14   

Well, just in case Joe G isn't on the case, let me continue to point out all the standard creationist arguments (as indicated in the Index of Creationist Claims) that appear in EE . . . .    ;)

OK, moving on to EE's Introduction, we find that it's just one big long discussion of "where you there?"  (creationist claim CA221):
"All theories of origins confront us with the challenge of explaining the unobservable past.  These theories try to explain unseen events, such as the origin of plants and animals -- or the origin of our own species, Homo sapiens.  This task can be difficult because, for nearly all of the history of life on earth, there was no one there to observe these events."



"Experimental scientists can observe phenomena under controlled conditions.  However, historical scientists, like archaeologists and paleontologists, must try to figure out what happened in the past without the benefit of observing the past directly."
CA220 "Evolution cannot be replicated"


"Sometimes, we find that the same evidence can be explained in more than one way.  When there are competing theories, reasonable people can (and do) disagree about which theory best explains the evidence.  Furthermore, in the historical sciences, neither side can directly verify its claims about past events."
CA230 "Interpreting evidence is not the same as observation"


"Some people use 'evolution' to refer to something as simple as small changes in bird beaks. Others use the same word to mean something much more far-reaching.  Used one way, the term 'evolution' isn't controversial at all; used another way, it's hotly debated."
CB901 "macroevolution has never been observed", CB902 "Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution"



"Evolution as 'change over time' can also refer to minor changes in features of individual species -- changes which take place over a short amount of time.  Many biologists think this kind of evolution (sometimes called 'microevolution') results from a change in the proportion of different variants of a gene within a population."
CB110 "Microevolution selects only existing variations"


"Evolution #1: 'Change over time'
Evolution #2: 'Universal Common Descent'
Evolution #3: 'The creative power of natural selection' "
"The discussion also gets confusing when someone takes evidence for Evolution #1 and tries to make it look like it supports Evolution #2."
CB901 "Macroevolution has never been observed", CB 902 "Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution", CB902.2 "Small changes do not imply large changes"



"Many of these scientists have begun to doubt whether natural selection can produce fundamentally new forms of life, or major innovations in the anatomical structure of animals (their 'body plans').  They see natural selection acting as an editor, weeding out harmful variations in body design, while conserving (keeping) helpful variations."
CB 904 "No entirely new features have evolved"


"Neo-Darwinists contend that 'a single tree of lfie containing multiple branches' is the most accurate picture of the history of life.  Other scientists doubt that all organisms have descended from one -- and only one -- common ancestor.  They say the evidence does indeed show some branching taking place within larger groups of organisms, but not between the larger groups.  According to these scientists, the history of life should not be represented as a single tree, but as a series of parallel lines representing an orchard of distinct trees.  In the orchard view, each of the trees has a separate beginning."
CB822 "Evolution's tree-like pattern is discredited", CB 901.1 "Range of variation is limited within kinds"


"When we use the term common descent (no capitals), we're referring to limited common descent -- the view that separate groups of organisms have common ancestors."
CB901.1 "Range of variation is limited within kinds"

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1006
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2007,14:25   

In the same thread I referenced above, Joe G confirms Lenny's oft-stated contention that the dopes can't go 10 minutes without bringing jebus into the discussion. Why ID doesn't depend on supernatural explanations:

Quote
“God” is nature and therefore does not exist outside of it.


Of course, the scare quotes around God are indicative of the fact that "God" might be space aliens.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2007,14:55   

Quote (afarensis @ Aug. 04 2007,08:48)
I have not been able to find the turtle argument in either edition, so it may be in the Morris book.

According to several sources, the "turtle shell" crapola appears in Duane Gish, "Evolution; The Fossils STILL Say No!", which is apparently a newer version of his, uh, magnum opus, published in 1995, on pages 112-115.

Anyone have a copy handy who can confirm this for me, please?


The turtle thingie is not in any ICR Impact articles that I can find, but Kofahl talks about it in Chapter Three of his "Creation Explanation" (online edition March 1995), and AiG has a piece about it in its "Creation" magazine, March 1999.

I couldn't find any online version of the Creation/Evolution article from 1982 . . .  but it certainly appears to be the same argument.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2007,15:23   

Chapter heading "Universal Common Descent -- Arguments for and Against"

"The purpose of this book is to introduce you to both the case for and the case against major aspects of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory.
CA510 "creation and evolution are the only 2 models", CA510.1 "Problems with evolution are evidence for creation"


"About 530 million years ago, more than half of the major animal groups (called phyla) appear suddenly in the fossil record. . .  Many evolutionary biologists doubt that this is enough time for the slow, gradual Darwinian processes to produce the amount of change that arises in the Cambrian explosion.  For this reason, many scientists think this geologically sudden appearance of many new life forms contradicts Darwin's prediction that new forms would emerge gradually over vast spans of geological time."
CC301 "Cambrian explosion contradicts evolutionary tree pattern"



"Turtles are another fascinating example of a group of animals that appears abruptly in the fossil record.  The order Chelonia, to which turtles and tortoises belong, appears suddenly in the late Triassic, around 200 million years ago.  The very first time turtles appear, their body plan is already fully developed, and they appear in the fossil record without intermediates."

(This argument isn't specifically listed in the Index of Creationist Claims, but it appears in several creationist sources, and apparently has at least 25 years of history behind it:

Quote

"The oldest fossil turtles (along with the earliest dinosaurs) appear abruptly in the Triassic rocks, fully developed and without any obvious precursors. ...Proganocheles retained many features inherited from its pareiasaurian forebears. ...Nevertheless, a forty-million-year gap, spanning almost the entire Triassic still exists between the last pareiasaurs and the earliest-known turtles. When turtles first appear in the fossil record, in the late Triassic, they are represented by at least four distinct lineages, suggesting that the group evolved and radiated slightly earlier."  The Creation Explanation, Robert Kofahl, Chapter 3b, March 1995)



Quote

Evolutionists claim turtles first appeared during the Triassic Period (supposedly 200 million years ago), when they were ‘numerous and in possession of basic turtle characteristics.’ Turtles allegedly sprang from the ‘primitive’ reptiles called cotylosaurs, yet intermediates are ‘completely lacking.’
Paula Weston, "Turtles; ", Creation Magazine, Answers in Genesis, March 1999




"The first fossil bat appears suddenly in the fossil record.  When it does, it is unquestionably a bat, capable of true flight.  Yet, we find nothing resembling a bat in the earlier rocks."


(This one, too, is not specifically in the Index of Creationist claims, but appears to have a long creationist history behind it:

Quote

"Bats, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record with no evidence of "pre-bat"
ancestors.  Fossil bats have all the same distinctive features we see in bats today, including extraordinarily long webbed fingers on their fore limbs and "backward" facing hind limbs.  (Bat knees and toes face to the rear!)  Even the distinctive shape of the bat skull, which serves to
channel sound to their ears for navigation by sonar (echo location), is found in fossil bats just as it is in all modern bats."  David Menton,  "The Hopeful Monsters of Evolution", June 1994)




Quote

Bats (of the order Chiroptera), the only flying mammal, are especially interesting. Evolutionists assume, of course, that bats must have evolved from a non-flying mammal. There is not one shred of evidence in the fossil record, however, to support such speculations, for, as Romer says, "Bats appear full fledged in both hemispheres in the Middle Eocene …"

On the cover page of Science of December 9, 1966 (Vol. 154) appears a picture of what the author (Glenn L. Jepsen) of the accompanying article (pp. 1333-1339) describes as the oldest known bat. He reports that it was found in Early Eocene deposits, which are dated by evolutionists at about 50 million years. While stating that this bat possessed a few "primitive" characteristics, Jepsen states that it was fully developed, an "anatomically precocious" contemporary of Eohippus. Thus, bats appear fully-formed, with no trace of ancestors or intermediate forms, as a contemporary of Eohippus, supposedly the ancestor of horses. According to Jepsen this leaves many questions unanswered, including when, from what, where, and how did bats originate?

ICR Impact, Sept 1, 1980, "The Origin of Mammals", by Duane Gish)



"For example, flowering plants appear suddenly in the early Cretaceous period, 145-125 million years ago."
CC250 "THere are no fossil ancestors of plants"



"As a result, critics say the pattern of fossil appearance does not support Darwin's picture of a gradually branching tree."
CC201 "We should see smooth change through the fossil record, not gaps."



"The fossil record provides many examples of living organisms that have remained stable in their form and structure over many millions of years -- sometimes over hundreds of millions of years."
CB930 "Some fossils pecies are still living"



In a discussion of punctuated equlibrium:

"The sudden appearance of major new forms of life, and the stability of these forms over time, have led some scientists to doubt that the fossil record supports the case for Common Descent".
CC201.1 "Punctuated equlibrium was ad hoc to justify gaps."  (I'm not really sure this shouldn't be a new entry in the Index, since this whole "sudden appearance and stasis supports creation" has been a creationist staple ever since Gould and Eldredge wrote their paper in 1972.)



"Even advocates of the Darwinian account acknowledge that the fossil record displays far fewer transitionals than predicted by the theory of Common Descent."
CC201 "There should be billions of transitional fossils"


"[B]iologist Malcolm Gordon and paleontologist Everett Olson point out that land-dwelling amphibians, themselves, appear suddenly in the fossil record.  They first show up in the late Devonian period, with no apparent connection to earlier life forms.  Gordon and Olson point out that the earliest amphibian fossils unmistakably show them as four-footed creatures."
CC212 "There are gaps between fish and amphibians".
(It should also be pointed out that the reference from Gordon and Olson givena bove is from *1995*, and that no mention is amde in EE of more recent fossil finds such as Tiktaalik.  I'm quite sure this is just an innocent oversite on the part of the authors, and not an attempt to be dishonest    --------  oh, who am I kidding.  Nelson, Meyer and their ilk are just being dishonest deceptive liars, deliberately and deceitfully.)




"Where were the multitudes of transitional forms connecting different groups, as predicted (and expected) by his theory?"
CC200.1 "There should be billions of transitional fossils"




Several pages of "punctuated eqilibrium says there is stasis and sudden appearance and thus disproves Darwinism" crapola.  Again, that is not specifically listed in the Index of Creationist Claims, but has been standard ICR fare for thirty years or more.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2007,15:54   

Another phrase that appears several times in the "Common Descent" chapter of EE is "abrupt appearance", along with "sudden appearance".

Both phrases are extremely significant --- as with "origins science", these terms are not used in any scientific texts, but they both have long and glorious creationist histories.  As I recall, both of them were suggested by the YECs as alternative labels for creation 'science' after the 1987 Supreme Court decision, before ID 'theory' stepped in to fill their shoes.

And if I recall correctly, there was some talk during the Dover trial about "sudden appearance", which prompted the lawyer to wonder if everyone would be back in a few years for the "sudden appearance theory trial", and the judge to retort "Not in MY courtroom" . . .

Prescient.


I therefore am surprised beyond comprehension that even Paul Nelson was stupid enough to use these particularly loaded phrases in this book.  (I am assuming that it was Nelson who wrote that particular section, since the entire "fossil" discussion is nothing but regurgitated thirty-year-old ICR boilerplate, and Nelson is the only YEC hack amongst the book's authors).

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
kdaddy



Posts: 4
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2007,16:33   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Aug. 04 2007,14:08)
As the evidence against EE mounts, it becomes more apparent that the DI is hoping for a sacrificial hick school board somewhere, and another religious advocacy law practice like Thomas More.  Only thing is, when the inevitable lawsuit is filed, the DI won't be able sneak away like they did at Dover.  I think this thread should go a long way towards giving them second thoughts about the whole thing. Unless, of course, they're able to solicit the services of Joe G, who will provide devastating cross examination of plaintiff experts, and win the day.

OMG! I've just read the "Vice Strategy" linked to in that post for the first time. It's absolutely hilarious.

Lawyer Bill asks: "And as a working hypothesis, aren’t scientists free to discard it (methodological naturalism) when they find that it 'no longer works'?"

Bill: As Indigo Montoya said "I don't think that word means what you think it means." A scientist cannot reject the scientific method - they wouldn't be a scientist anymore. If a lawyer disavows the rule of law, I wouldn't call them a lawyer anymore - anarchist, yes.

  
  859 replies since July 13 2007,13:04 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (29) < ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]