Evolution: Don’t even talk about it in Texas

Guest Post by Morbo

Here’s how much officials at the Texas Education Agency (TEA) hate evolution: They hate it so much that TEA staff members can now be forced out of their jobs merely for telling people about a speech by a noted opponent of “intelligent design” (ID).

Chris Comer, for example, the state director of science curriculum, has been fired. Her offense is that she forwarded an e-mail to several individuals and community groups announcing a speech being given by Barbara Forrest, co-author of Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design, a book critical of the ID movement.

Comer sent the announcement as an FYI, a courtesy in case anyone wanted to hear Forrest speak. That was enough to set off the kook right. As the Austin American-Statesman reports:

The call to fire Comer came from Lizzette Reynolds, who previously worked in the U.S. Department of Education. She also served as deputy legislative director for Gov. George W. Bush. She joined the Texas Education Agency as the senior adviser on statewide initiatives in January.

Reynolds, who was out sick the day Comer forwarded the e-mail, received a copy from an unnamed source and forwarded it to Comer’s bosses less than two hours after Comer sent it.

“This is highly inappropriate,” Reynolds said in an e-mail to Comer’s supervisors. “I believe this is an offense that calls for termination or, at the very least, reassignment of responsibilities. This is something that the State Board, the Governor’s Office and members of the Legislature would be extremely upset to see because it assumes this is a subject that the agency supports.”

No, we certainly wouldn’t want anyone in Texas getting the idea that the state agency responsible for overseeing the public school curriculum would do anything as reckless as support good science education.

Comer was placed on leave, then pressured to resign and did so. In an effort to cover the agency’s butt, TEA officials drummed up some other reasons that Comer had to be let go. But they all sound picayune — because they are picayune. Let’s be clear about what happened: It is 2007, and the woman was fired because she dared suggest that some people might want to hear a speech backing the teaching of evolution.

I have some advice for Comer: Get out of Texas. Get out now. There are 49 other states, and my guess is at least some of them are interested in hiring someone who truly understands the need for real science in the classroom. Texas seems determined to wallow in ignorance. Let it.

Sooner or later, Texas will pay a price for valuing ignorance and blind loyalty to dogma over real science. Do you really want to be living there when that day of reckoning comes?

Corner is ultimately responsible to the taxpayers of Texas, who pay her salary. It is overwhelmingly obvious that Texans seriously object to liberal secular humanists foisting their unfounded religious beliefs upon innocent schoolchildren in Texas public schools.

  • Give me a big enough chain-saw, and I’ll solve the problem. I’ll cut Texas free from the mainland, it can drift out into the Gulf of Mexico with all its little xenophobic flying monkeys (hopefully to be annihilated by some future hurricane), and we can adopt Mexico as the 50th state.

  • Gee, Texas makes most of its revenues by selling the fossilized remains of plant (coal) and allegedly animal (oil) as fuels. So in essense, Texas is living off the remains of evilushun and it seems there is a signifcant % of the population (especially so it seems among the energy companies) that have the mental gymnastics to skirt the issue.

  • I would think that even those who support ID would want to hear the arguments of someone who opposes it, just to refine their argument. This sounds a lot like a kid sticking his fingers in his ears and chanting nahnahnah to avoid hearing something he doesn’t want to hear.

  • I am a Texas democrat, born and raised here. I studied evolution in high school… HERE. It’s tough being blue in a red state, but trust me, there are alot more blue here than you may think. And… most of my family is red, but belive in evolution. Don’t write us off on the actions of a few idiots in the TEA. Times here are a-changin’.

  • would think that even those who support ID would want to hear the arguments of someone who opposes it, just to refine their argument.

    Jen –

    Are you speaking sarcastically, or have you actually not been following the ID debate? ID doesn’t have any actual arguments – they can’t refine them in any way because they have no evidence, no facts, and no logical reasoning for the existence of ID that can’t be easily demolished by trained evolutionary biologists.

    The whole purpose of ID is to have a form of creationism that looks like science – but there’s no real argument or science there. It’s just creationism with God filed off to attempt to make it suitable for a science classroom – not a real scientific theory. So the only “arguments” that ID needs to refine itself against are arguments that it’s actually religion disguising itself as science.

    ID is just another example of religious folks telling the “holy lie” – it’s okay to lie to promote your religion to some of these folks.

  • Right on, jzamdag. As a born and bred Texan progressive, I am often frustrated with the attitudes of others. I channel my frustration into letter writing and activism. We’re not all lunatics in this state, and if we don’t speak up, we can’t expect things to change.

  • I don’t know why, but this report just makes me brim over with immense sadness.

    It just seems like the last straw of human idiocy in America.

  • One more thought: I really believe that the scientific community should become more active in this nationwide discussion. As scientists, we often have the mistaken attitude that we shouldn’t even address the ridiculous notions of others and then we roll our eyes and quietly go back to our lab tables, linear accelerators, and p-values. However, these religious zealots are _organized_ and perhaps most importantly, LOUD. Organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists offer an excellent way to get involved. Also, voting and volunteering are key. Just because we understand something doesn’t mean that Joe Q. Public does. The naive public may find the ID “debate” compelling, and if we don’t speak up and present opposing opinions, how will they even be able to form a reasoned opinion?

  • Webmaster:

    That’s cute. You don’t like my reply so you claim I didn’t answer the challenge question correctly. From Hitler, to Stalin, to Mao, to Pol Pot, to Al Gore–progressives never change. They just kill different people.

  • I suppose that “goldberg’ is posting in the wrong tread? I hope so for his/her own sake.

    Amen to ‘cha’ It is true that a lot of educated people will roll their eyes at the uneducated masses, thereby giving the zealots an audience gullible enough to consider their ideas as valid.

  • That’s cute. You don’t like my reply so you claim I didn’t answer the challenge question correctly. From Hitler, to Stalin, to Mao, to Pol Pot, to Al Gore–progressives never change. They just kill different people.

    wow, I didn’t realize that when the little test-question messes up, I was being assasinated by proto-progressive-fascists! And the guy/gal is dumb enough to then post a comment, successfully, rather than re-posting the one that didn’t go through. Please post your comment again. I’m sure with that much paranoia it was a great post!

  • I hope Comer sues the hell out of those people. I’ve no doubt she “resigned” at their insistence, but she would have been in a much stronger position if she’d made them fire her. She might be able to file a lawsuit on the basis of constructive discharge, a form of wrongful termination. She might also claim at the same time that her equal protection rights were violated, that the TEA is promoting religious dogma in public schools at taxpayer expense, and thereby they violated HER right to be free of religious discrimination in the workplace.

    A good attorney would certainly have a field day with this piece of religious crap from Texas, today’s leader in rednekkidness.

    I’ve noticed lately that my posting language is deteriorating out of my frustration about what the right-wing has done to Americans, including all of the Bush administration.

  • I appreciate the posts from Texas progressives. They make me reconsider an idea I’ve had for years: we know that the theory of secession was discredited by the Civil War, but the endless stream of incompetent and/or deranged pols like Bush and DeLay have led me to wonder about “expulsion.” Can we kick a state out of the union? I’m fine having our taxes pay for the relocation of anyone who wants to come to the United States, so long as you’re not a high-ranking Republican official (call it revised de-Ba’athification…), and the rest of them can enjoy life in a theocratic, feudalistic, unregulated, armed-to-the-teeth zoo state.

    Of course, we might want to build a wall lest the likes of Rick Perry attempt to come north.

  • Like dajafi (#15) I appreciate the posts from Texas progressives. I have a bunch of relatives in TX, and they define rednekkidness (thanks for that word Anney, #14).

    I’m so happy to live in Washington State, the most un-churched region of the country.

  • Steve, @2

    Isolationism is not the answer; you’d be tipping out the baby with its bath water. Besides, your “solution” sounds much too biblical (“if thy eye offends thee, pluck it out” kind of thing) 🙂

    Howard Dean’s solution is much better: work from inside out to enlarge your territory, instead of retreating to the ever-diminishing base. I’m with jzamdag and cha, even though I’m in Virginia, not Texas; it’s lonely enough being a progressive in a blood-red neck of the woods without having other progressives turn on you with axes and chain-saws.

    Re Goldberg, @10: it must be used to posting at right-wing nut-sites, where the webmasters sits, like a huge, bloodsucking spider, waiting to digest and eliminate the out-of-line postings. It’s not used to having the postings go through and be left for dissection by other commenters 🙂

  • Goldberg

    Nobody deleted your post. The first post of each day by posters, old and new, must always be entered twice. Copy it and post it the second time around and it’ll take. I copy mine every time, just in case.

  • I say hurray for Texas!!! They know the truth when they hear it and refuse to believe a lie…the lie of evolution. I’m sure God is looking down on Texas and smiling. There is a series of 7 scientific textbooks soon to be published which will be a grand resource for the Texas schools called The Quest for Right. So don’t give up the battle for truth Texas!! Resources are on the way for your students. http://www.questforright.com

  • Jesus Christ! A rightwing religious NUT who doesn’t know what she’s talking about has wandered in. Honey, go on over to your Bible-believing forums where you’ll be in good company with other the-universe-was-created-in-six-days proponents. Your rednekkidness is also showing.

  • This “science” stuff – it’s goofy isn’t it?

    It gave you the plasic keys on the keyboard you’re typing on.
    It gave you the PC attached to the keyboard.
    It discovered electricity used by, well by gooly, just about everything.
    And it gave you evolution.

    So it’s your choice to not “believe” in evolution, and to thus not “believe” in science, but please remember that every time you drive a car, or flip on a light switch, or post on the Internet – you have acted as if you “believe” in science.

    Please be consistent when you follow your beliefs.

  • Seriously – “Texas Education Agency”? Besides being a synonym for “irony” it has a certain fascist ring to it, doesn’t it? Not to mention being staffed by idiots that must also be card-carrying members of the Flat Earth Society. Wake up, people! Your kids are being educated by time-travelers from the twelfth century! Stupid people teaching stupidity will only produce more stupidity.

  • Given the fact that Texas – due to the way it came into the Union – can be expelled from the United States, I say we should do so. Evacuate the ten percent of the population with IQs above room temperature and leave the rest to their fate. The place was founded by thieves, murderers, back alley assassins, failed corrupt politicians, bank robbers, cashiered court-martialed army officers, traitors, slave catchers, slave traders, fools, perverts and general scum. Let the Mexicans finally ethnically cleanse the place and be done with it.

    Thank God my parents had the good sense to get me out of that place despite having been born there before I caught whatever it is down there (is it in the water?) that turns them into quarterwits.

  • Anney; couldn’t have said it any better myself in your description of Linda Parsons. People like that fit nicely in with what Tom Cleaver refers to:

    Evacuate the ten percent of the population with IQs above room temperature and leave the rest to their fate

  • In Texas it’s not evolution …its devolution. They do know what the devil looks like up close…hell, he was governor of their state for several years, killing as many as he could get signed up. Accepting evolution does not discount a believe in God (it’s god’s natural law) however accepting ID makes God look like a fool without a memory. ID makes fun of God’s natural laws, of his divine structure and plan for all things. (and ya doesn’t has to call it god neither…I mean he doesn’t have an inferiority complex). All that is just is. And all that is…is God. There’s nothing outside of him…you just have a funny way of thinking and try to turn God into a bigger you.

  • 95% of the people who spout forth belief in evolution, I suspect, probably barely obtained a undergraduate degree. You people are the rats to the scientific community’s Pied Piper. It’s the height of glib condescension to criticize everyone who disagrees with your unobservable goop-to-man theory.

    Evolution is not science and although Ms. Comer shouldn’t have been fired I’m glad that everyone doesn’t accept evolution hook, line, and sinker. Much like global warming, nonsense like this has been pulled over the eyes of society for far too long. Believe in God or don’t, but evolution is patent nonsense.

  • NonyNony

    The whole purpose of ID is to have a form of creationism that looks like science – but there’s no real argument or science there. It’s just creationism with God filed off to attempt to make it suitable for a science classroom – not a real scientific theory.

    To confirm your point and remind people so they have the facts for argument if needed, let me say this.

    Intelligent Design isn’t an “alternate science” at all, as claimed by the religious right. It isn’t science, period. ID is only an assumption about the origin of the universe, a religiously-based belief that the Christian God created it. As is self-evident, the existence of God can’t be proved or disproved and so is unalterably outside the parameters of science.

    Science on the other hand is an “investigative structure” that deals with observed physical actions or phenomena about which a hypothesis or an “untested model” posits an answer to or prediction about a question or problem associated with the physical phenomenon. The test uses proved information to conduct the exploration of the validity or non-validity of the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is tested by others who find it to be valid, it moves across the line into the theory-pot, though at some time later its “theoretical standing” may have to be amended because of new information. Third in line and the most “stable” or consistently proved hypothesis-theory enters the realm of a “law of nature”.

    OR, more succinctly:

    Introduction to the Scientific Method

    The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world.

    Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory. As a famous scientist once said, “Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view.” In summary, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter when testing an hypothesis or a theory.

    I. The scientific method has four steps

    1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

    2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

    3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

    4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

    If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

    II. Testing hypotheses

    As just stated, experimental tests may lead either to the confirmation of the hypothesis, or to the ruling out of the hypothesis. The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, “experiment is supreme” and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary. http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

    To repeat the original point, ID is NOT an alternative science any more than an assumption that garden elves created the universe is an alternative science. It’s just a belief outside the boundaries of science that can never be proved or disproved because of the physical nature of what science explores and investigates.

    Since science deals with the physical-material world and phenomena relating to it, science is comprised entirely of matters that CAN be proved or disproved, and never addresses anything beyond these limitations.

  • Help is on the way for the embattled State School Board of Texas. In January 2007, a new textbook on creationsim verses evolution is slated for publication. A copy of The Quest for Right (http://QuestForRight.com) will be send to numerous school board members across the state for their review. This is the book which will be taught in public schools because it is based exclusively on physical science, the old science of cause and effect. The Quest for Right has achieved that which most could never imagine: the 7-volume set levels the playing field between those who believe in creationism and those who preach evolution.

  • There are plenty of Texans that are reasonable, intelligent, rational, reality-based humans.
    The same can be said for the entire United States population.
    Our PROBLEM is a minority of fools and idiots that, for the moment, are in charge of our government.
    Again, the U.S. has the same PROBLEM.
    It won’t go away by moving elsewhere. (Although there are times when I wish I could just leave.)
    The only solution is to take back our government!

  • C. David Parsons

    The Quest for Right has achieved that which most could never imagine: the 7-volume set levels the playing field between those who believe in creationism and those who preach evolution.

    There IS no “playing field” where creationism and evolution exist together, so your blurb is ridiculous. You apparently know NOTHING about the scientific method or what science addresses. Hawk your books in rightwing churches and religious schools, not to public schools, where the teaching of anything based on religion is illegal.

  • I don’t “believe” in evolution. It is a scientific theory which has to this point, been tested and accepted. ID and creationism are fine “beliefs”, but as theory, they are complete crap. Nothing more than a sham to get religion taught in public school. If you really “believe” that the same scientific method that developed modern medicine is crap and you’re a doctor, well, it must be interesting being you!

    I design and build equipment used to make large airplanes that millions of people fly on every day. I cannot choose to ignore what the scientific method and the hard work of millions of people have done over the last two thousand years. I need to ensure my work is safe and sound. This does not conflict with my relationship with God. He gave me a brain and expects me to use it.

    You can choose to “believe” or “not believe” in science. But be consistent – ignore all of it, not just the part you don’t like.

  • Admin – Shouldn’t the Parsons (appropriate name, that) be treated as spammers for using this thread as an excuse to hawk their new book repeatedly? So far, they’re doing it at a rate of one spam for every 14 posts. Although I admit to getting some amusement out of the idea of a revolutionary scientific paradigm whose chosen venue for propagation is… textbooks for high school students. Uh, yeah. Oh, and check out David’s self-description on his PR DVD: “Biblical Scholar and Scientist Extraordinaire.” You can’t make this stuff up.

  • I want everyone to take a look at this graph ranking the countries of the industrialized world on how well their children scored in science. http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/8/39700724.pdf .

    Try to find the United States… still looking? Try in the green “far below average” section. Yep, there we are, right behind Latvia. Now take a look at this graph http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=060810_evo_rank_02.jpg&cap=A+chart+showing+public+acceptance+of+evolution+in+34+countries.+The+United+States+ranked+near+the+bottom%2C+beat+only+by+Turkey.+Credit%3A+Science .

    It details the percentage of population that believes in creationism versus evolution. Notice how it is almost a total reverse of the first graph. Only turkey has more creationists than the United States, and sure enough their science scores were below ours. Now I don’t want to imply creationists are stupid, but… well actually that’s exactly what I’m implying.

    I also got a chuckle when I was watching a creation v.s evolution “debate” recently. You see, the scientist that was pro-evolution did a background check on the man who claimed to be a “scientist” spouting creationism. Turns out he wasn’t a biologist at all; the creationist got an undergraduate degree in chemistry from some backwater college in Wisconsin, and since graduation had never once been employed in the sciences. The look of horror and fury on that creationists face was priceless. The point I’m making is that if you look these kooks up, you find almost universally that their degrees are either irrelevant to the subject or, in many cases, completely unverifiable (aka fake). Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I’m beginning to wonder if there is a conscious effort to get preachers fake degrees to aid them in indoctrinating children. It makes sense, radical Muslims have known for years that the only way to create true zealots is to home-grow them for years with anti-west propaganda from birth. It only makes sense that their slower cousins in the west would pick up on it eventually.

  • And the first comment on the thread could use a little more dismantling:

    “Corner is ultimately responsible to the taxpayers of Texas, who pay her salary.” Scientific facts are not decided by citizen vote. And she’s responsible to the schoolchildren of Texas and the development of their minds, not to the religious sensibilities of a certain subset of Christians. And it’s Comer, not Corner.

    “It is overwhelmingly obvious that Texans seriously object…” Unless one checks the comments below yours, or those on some other online forums I’ve checked out, where lots of Texans are expressing their support of Comer and of solid science education, and their disgust at her ouster. Typical fundie “we rule the world” arrogance.

    “…to liberal secular humanists foisting their unfounded religious beliefs…” Yawn, favorite Creationist lie, repetition #4,366,578,982. Evolution is accepted by almost 100% of scientists around the world, whatever their cultural background or political or religious leanings. On the other hand, creationism and its sibling, intelligent design, are largely the province of a particular segment of right-wing Christians, mostly in the U.S., most of them not scientists, who do no scientific research that backs up their position – they are the ones forcing their religious beliefs on others.

    “…upon innocent schoolchildren in Texas public schools.” I dunno about “innocent” – I’d imagine a fair number of them have smoked pot and/or had sex and/or shoplifted. Sorry to burst your bubble.

  • Our physician friend at comment #26: “95% of the people who spout forth belief in evolution, I suspect, probably barely obtained a undergraduate degree.”

    Funny, then, that there are all those PhD scientists working in the field. Is this what they call New Math? Show your work, please.

    “You people are the rats to the scientific community’s Pied Piper.”

    Well, it’s at least nice to see an evolution denialist admit that the scientific community is mostly or entirely accepting of evolution. That makes you, in this one respect, slightly more honest than most of your ilk. Never mind that it contradicts your previous sentence.

    “It’s the height of glib condescension to criticize everyone who disagrees with your unobservable goop-to-man theory.”

    Just out of curiosity: Is it more or less glib than claiming most of the scientists in the world for well over a century have been in on a conspiracy to fake the evidence for evolution, or have just been so distracted by their pretty bunsen burner flames that haven’t noticed there’s no evidence for it? I might concede that they are at a disadvantage vis-a-vis the intelligent design supporters and their easily observable intelligent designer.

    “Evolution is not science…”

    Uh oh, you’d better tell the scientific community – I don’t think they’ve noticed. Tell me, how do they stay a “scientific” community when they don’t do any science?

    “Ms. Comer shouldn’t have been fired…”

    Nice that you finally got around to this. Apparently, though, this religiopolitically motivated ouster at the highest levels of the education system doesn’t concern you much, as this observation is plainly an afterthought.

  • You call ID a Dumb Idea. How ignorant can a person be?

    People throughout history have believed in intelligent design. Why? For the simple fact that it is observable all around us and always has been. Logic and common sense will always lead you to believe that design is evident in all life. There are millions of examples of design.

    To deny this you have to completely ignore this. That is what people such as yourself do. To say that science has found the answer to life’s origin is crazy. Even a cursory look at the so called evidence for evolution shows that science has no answer at all. Just theory. So why is it called fact and ID a fairy tale when logic, scientific evidence, and observable evidence say otherwise? I’ll tell you why, because many in the scientific community rule out ID in advance no matter what the evidence shows. This is not science. Science should be a search for truth no matter where it leads but this is not the case.

    Why is evolution called science and ID cannot be considered scientific?

    Darwinian evolution has never been shown to be true. Microevolution (change or adaptation within a species) was known before Darwin and is not disputed. This does not mean that Macroevolution (life forms changing into a new species) has ever occurred. In fact, there is no evidence to show that macroevolution has ever happened in the past or in the present. To say that Macroevolution is a proven fact is a total lie and misrepresentation of the facts. There is NO EVIDENCE for it in the fossil record, molecular biology, and many of the sciences. In fact. if you would look at the evidence openly without your bias, the complete opposite is actually true. The fossil record for example rather than supporting evolution actually cries loudly against it and for ID.

    If anyone would look critically at evolution and honestly at Intelligent Design, they will come away realizing that the weight of evidence is not on the side of evolution but on the side of design.

    To embrace Darwinism and its underlying premise of naturalism, you would have to believe that:

    • Nothing produces everything
    • Non-life produces life
    • Randomness produces fine-tuning
    • Chaos produces information
    • Unconsciousness produces consciousness
    • Non-reason produces reason

    I don’t have enough faith to believe this fairy tale.

  • “Why is evolution called science and ID cannot be considered scientific?”

    Because evolution has mountains of observable evidence to back it up. Such as, for example, real observation.

    Meanwhile, ID is nothing but christian creationism repackaged with a deceptive package.

    Evolution is supported by people who have studied the biology for 20, 30, even 40 years and therefore know what they’re talking about.

    Meanwhile, ID is supported by kooks with a political agenda who have no research, no peer-reviewed studies, and nothing to back it up.

    I could go on, but it all comes out to the same thing. Evolution is scientific. ID is creationism, which is religious nonsense believed by kooks and liars.

  • I love how pundits discuss ID vs Evo as if they understand of Science.
    1. What is Evolution?
    2. What is natural selection?
    If you can’t describe the difference then you should not be giving your opinion about the validity of ID or Evo.

  • The fundamental law of natural selection is in accordance with ID. The question remains, does ID explain life better that Evo?

  • Just a few simple questions to consider…

    What is a more beautiful?
    A machine that needs constant maintenance, depends upon arbitrary tinkering and hand selection, corrects only when told, exhibits extinction that must be approved, and has pre-thoughtout designs to include pre-designed failures, destructive disease, malignant mutations, and sometimes purposely bad design.
    OR
    A machine that maintains itself, corrects itself, responds to environmental pressures, utilizes variation and eliminates through extinction, converges and diverges, exists in the mode of competition and challenge, promotes through favorable mutation and adaption, restarts after major genetic setbacks, and ultimately creates and designs itself.

    Which one enables free-will? Which one exhibits “intelligent design”?

  • “In fact, there is no evidence to show that macroevolution has ever happened in the past or in the present. To say that Macroevolution is a proven fact is a total lie and misrepresentation of the facts. There is NO EVIDENCE for it in the fossil record, molecular biology, and many of the sciences.”

    From this paragraph its obvious you’ve probably never taken a college level biology class. There is an endless supply of evidence for macroevolution. Perhaps, most recently the fact that chickens are distantly related to dinosaurs. If you took a biology class you would learn that about the ribosomal similarities between mitochondria and ancient alpha proteo bacteria that overwhelming suggest endosymbiosis early in the history of eukaryotes. Using your logic, ID “makes sense” and we should all believe it even though its not science and theres no experimental evidence for it. Logic like that kept another theory from being tested for hundreds of years because a Greek named Aristotle thought it “made sense”. Today you would be laughed at if you didn’t accept the Theory of Gravitation. As a college student studying in Texas, I hope the same can be said of the Theory of Evolution in years to come.

  • #36 Scott said:
    “To embrace Darwinism and its underlying premise of naturalism, you would have to believe that:
    • Nothing produces everything
    • Non-life produces life
    • Randomness produces fine-tuning
    • Chaos produces information
    • Unconsciousness produces consciousness
    • Non-reason produces reason
    I don’t have enough faith to believe this fairy tale.”

    Tell us — Where did you get “this fairy tale”? Your church? You obviously didn’t get it from a scientist. Try reading a science book to learn what the words “natural selection” mean when scientists use it.

    You might try this book: “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life”, by Daniel C. Dennett, Simon and Schuster, 1995. It’s probably at your local library.

    Then you might be able to stop whipping your straw man, and perhaps people might not laugh at what you say quite as often.

  • FCP: “The fundamental law of natural selection is in accordance with ID.”

    What are you talking about? Do you even know what you mean by that? What “law” of natural selection? How does it accord with ID?

    –“The question remains, does ID explain life better that Evo?”

    The question does not remain, not in the mind of any serious biologist. ID explains nothing, let alone doing it better than any other idea. It’s too vague for that. ID “theorists” refuse to propose and test any ideas about who the designer(s) might be (unless you catch them admitting it’s God, which they do frequently, if unofficially), or exactly what the designer(s) did, or when, or how. This is a legal and political strategy that’s supposed to allow them to pretend they’re doing science instead of religion, while leaving a big blank space where their supporters among the regular religious flock can read in, “It was God.”

    And Scott at #36? That was the Cliffs Notes of standard creationist fallacies and misrepresentations. It’s too boring and packed with wrongness to even refute right now – I’d wake up in the morning with keyboard marks on my face. Just, please, try to learn a little something… anything… about actual biology. Because there’s hardly a biologist in the world who would recognize a single one of your supposed “facts.” Just for starters, you, like most creationists, have no clue what a scientific theory is.

    Honestly, these people who know nothing about the subject under discussion, who think they somehow have noticed all these “obvious” things that all the working scientists have somehow missed… What do you do with self-confident ignorance like that?

  • Many thanks for posting the old college scientific method reminder from “anney”… we need to be reminded/introduce to it (collectively as a society) in great quantities.

    My concerned is that we’re demonizing all this… this is dangerous, costly, distracting and divisive to our society.

    This keeps us from channeling our energy for innovating greater accomplishments, maintaining our infrastructure, and updating our checks and balances.

    This also makes us vulnerable to being used by others who love using wedge issues to elect/delect rogue/bought goverment officials.

    Normally a well educated population does not take things personally, overeact, pick fights (pre-emptive war)…, instead we ask questions, apply the scientific method, involve the people, consult experts, build bridges…

    My take is that we’re neglecting our community’s quality of life, our infrastructure, our education… there are less and less scientists, less engineers, less doctors… but more salespeople (day trading at everyone else’s expense, including our democracy).

    Why ID in Texas… it’s a huge state with lot’s of empty land founded on oil, govern by guns, millions of undocumented and uneducated economic slaves, where the current P_resident comes from… conditions similar to the Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc..

    Thank you for reading and thank all those who contributed meaningfully to this thread!

  • Everyone should take a good look at Scotts post. Notice anything? How about the complete lack of fact to back up anything he said? Just a bunch of empty words, and an unprovable assertation. Mix in the thinly veiled conspiracy theory (I promise that the scientific community isn’t trying to crush your beliefs and burn your bibles, although I cant say it wouldn’t be justified after all the centuries that religious fanatics burned scientists at the stake along with their books.) and you have a tasty creationist stew. For my own amusement I’ll try to explain away Scott’s list of arguments, in case some impressionable young mind might read them and feel swayed.

    1.)Nothing produces everything.

    Pretty vague, but I’m guessing he’s referring to the big bang. The quick answer is that the big bang starts with all matter already in existence, compressed to a single point. It cant, nor has it ever tried to, explain where that matter came from. That is outside the testable or even theoretical realm, and therefore NOT SCIENCE. This is the point where religion and/or philosophy kick in.

    Philosophically, you cant have nothing without something. I think that Aristotle does a beautiful job in his proof of god, you should read it sometime. Although I imagine his god is far removed from yours.

    2.)Non-life produces life

    This has been beaten to death. But for the trillionth time, we have seen that by throwing elements that were common on the early earth in water, throw in some charged particles, and you can get amino acids to form. These are the building blocks of simple life, like legos spinning in a dryer. As of yet, we haven’t seen any of these life-making legos snap together in our experiments. But keep in mind these experiments are done in beakers with small amounts of water, whereas the earth would have had an unimaginable amount. So what we’re doing is throwing a pail of legos into a single dryer and hoping for luck. The earth represents infinite amounts of dryers, filled with legos. At that point luck becomes secondary… probability says it will happen.

    3.)Randomness produces fine tuning

    Again, really vague. I understand these confusing semi-coherent statements work wonders with the Baptist hordes, but I have trouble deciphering them. Perhaps he refers to natural selection? That amounts to the process by which species are fine tuned. If this is what he means, then he couldn’t be farther from the truth. Natural selection is anything but random; the species, or those within a species, who posses the traits best suited to their environment survive to spread their genes to subsequent generations. You might think of it as natural inevitability.

    4.)Chaos produces information

    Odd as this may sound, this is simply abusing language to create a straw man. Immediately after the big bang, if a human were observing the universe, they would have seen the apperance of chaos. The laws of the universe as we understand them may have been distorted. We know for a fact that the fabric of time and space would have been smaller. But there would still have been some laws, however distorted, that provided some semblance of order. The tendency of bodies to attract one another (gravity) made it a certainty that matter would coalesce to form gas clouds, which further formed stars, which eventually were forced to explode and produce heavier elements, which in turn coalesced. I can’t tell you exactly how it happened, or even if the big bang proceeded as we now believe. But that is what science is for; first we try to give a rough outline, then once we’re reasonably confident we start filling in details.

    5.)Unconsciousness produces consciousness

    I cant even begin to answer this one, because as of right now science has zippo to go off of. Not that we wont ever understand how beings become aware, or progress to self awareness. We just don’t right now. Sorry. I would as the same thing of your god however; how did he become consciousness. And if you answer he just is, then I ask why the same couldn’t happen for anything? Comically, I imagine we will see the answer to this within our lifetimes. Within the next three decades, if computer technology continues to advance at its current rate, a computer more sophisticated than the human brain will be created. I imagine that if anything has the ability to become aware out of nothingness it will be creations such as these. Stay tuned.

    6.)Non-reason produces reason

    This is simply a mixed rehash of the above points, designed to stun the less than intelligent. Not worth the minute to type.

    I understand why people are so fervent about this creationist rubbish. It is far easier to look at a book, call it divine, and use it as a word for word instruction manual for life rather than think for yourself. But that just isn’t the way it works. Creationism, and biblical literalism in general, exist only because people don’t want to think. I have little problem with those Christian denominations that don’t espouse literalist nonsense, like the Catholics that believe in evolution as the tool by which God shapes the universe. They are looking at evidence first, and filling in the unknowable gaps with god. I myself believe in a god, for many of the same reasons that Aristotle did. But we cant let religious belief stop us from learning, or seeking truth.

  • China would love this. I bet they’re loving it. If the other 49 state, all of us supported and marched to the tune of these official clowns from the TEA, we’d be absolutely nothing. A spectular loser instead of world power.

  • Often Evo is misstated as Nat Sel (even amongst biologists).
    ID does not take issue with nat sel, it is supported by it. Just a Evo should be.

    Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common. Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, such that individuals with favorable phenotypes are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with less favorable phenotypes. If these phenotypes have a genetic basis, then the genotype associated with the favorable phenotype will increase in frequency in the next generation. Over time, this process can result in adaptations that specialize organisms for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species.
    Referenfce: Wikipedia

  • A Darwinian macroevolution-denying Physician said: “95% of the people who spout forth belief in evolution, I suspect, probably barely obtained a undergraduate degree”

    Less than 5% of the population have post-graduate degrees. So of course you’re right. But the same would be true of any view, including intelligent design, continental drift, and middle school multiplication tables. I therefore fail to see how your remark has any bearing on the issue. Indeed given its obvious vacuity, it sounds more like a pat on your own back of a piece with someone writing “I spel reel goode”.

    A Darwinian macroevolution-denying Physician went on to say: “Evolution is not science”

    Do you just say things you believe and stop there? I’m used to people at least making some kind of an attempt to give reasons. Otherwise we’re getting nothing but an autobiographical account of your own beliefs, which is both unhelpful and presumptuous.

    You disparage people who disagree with you for their relative lack of formal education. Having an educated mind, however, has a much weaker correlation with degrees obtained than one might hope, and I offer your post as evidence for that fact.

  • Is ID testable?
    Mathmaticians use a technique called proof by contradiction. If it is shown that Evolution is unlikely, than ID becomes favorable.

    Is Evolution testable?
    By experiment and observation we have not been able to support the idea that fish can evolve to walk. It is also clear that mutations are unfavorable to organisms, in general (every once in awhile you get an interisting experiment where a mutation makes an organism more adapted, but it is still a less resiliant organism (sikle cell, drug resistant bacteria)). It is also impossible to view to millions of years necessary for “evolution.” The fossil record is absent of necessary transitional forms. Darwinian evolution is abandoned by much of the community and evidence is mounting that evolution is highly improbable. Even the classic amino acid soup experiment is troublesome for evolution due to chirality.

  • It’s amazing how the “magic” word, evolution, makes the morons crawl out of the woodwork.
    These are people arguing against verifiable science, using only “ID”, which isn’t even a real theory.
    It’s the revolution of the inbred.

  • Curious at #48 said: “Less than 5% of the population have post-graduate degrees. So of course you’re right.”

    Actually, I don’t think so. I’ve seen statistics a number of times indicating that acceptance of evolution goes up sharply the more higher education someone has. But you’re correct that Physician’s comment isn’t terribly relevant or insightful, regardless.

    And then there’s Chemist Mathmatician [sic] Physical Scientist Dentist Plumber Giftwrapper Shrimpfarmer at #49. How creationists do love to crow about their lists of supposed credentials. It’s like a man who can’t perform sexually loudly talking about the size of his penis; what counts, of course, is what you do with it, not how much there is.

    Chemist etc., you should gives some lessons to Scott – you’re at least more succinct and readable. But it’s still all the same billion-times-refuted falsehoods, full of the same elementary school-level misunderstandings about how science works, repeated like a magic formula, as if they’ll suddenly become true after the billion-and-first repetition. Suffice it to say that virtually no biologist (or zoologist or geneticist or paleontologist, etc.) in the world would recognize any of the “facts” you spout.

    “Mathmaticians use a technique called proof by contradiction.”

    Yes, and physical scientists don’t. (Gee, you’d think someone with so many scientific credentials would know that, or at least be honest about it.) So even if your criticisms of evolution were valid, they wouldn’t prove ID. IDists have to come up with positive evidence for their idea, and they’ve never bothered to do that, they just repeat tired attacks on evolution, like you.

    “Darwinian evolution is abandoned by much of the community and evidence is mounting that evolution is highly improbable.”

    Zzzzzzzzzz… cough, cough… huh, what? Oh, hi. Uh, yeah, evolution denialists have been saying this since Darwin was accepted, and it’s never gotten any truer. Almost all scientists in the relevant fields accept evolution. The developments and discoveries in the field come faster and thicker every year, in thousands of research papers in scientific journals, which is how scientists argue for their ideas and put them up for examination and testing by other scientists. Meanwhile, ID creationists have never published a single, solitary research paper and don’t do any scientific research that supports their claims. They just push them to high school students and religious groups.

  • Evolution is a lie. The entire universe was, in fact, sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure. Everyone should be preparing for “The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief”. Long live intelligent design!

  • “The fossil record is absent of necessary transitional forms.”
    I’m starting to wonder if this is the same guy reading out of a brochure. Are these just lining the pews nowadays or what? Occasionally I ask myself what it would take to end this stupidity. Maybe a T-Rex skeleton with “I evolved” fossilized into the tree it’s laying next to. I mean really, there is no one magical fossil we will ever find that ID nuts would admit to being transitional. The fossil record works like a movie reel missing frames. Occasionally we find another frame, and put it where it’s supposed to go, but for it to play perfectly smoothly like a movie we’d have to find every last frame. That would be nice, but highly unlikely given the difficulty inherent in finding good quality fossils.

    I wonder how creationists are dealing with the increasingly abundant and persuasive genetic links that are being established. I suppose that’s the next science to come under attack by these nuts; I mean, we wouldn’t want too much money going into genetics research that would most certainly prove evolution, would we?

  • So true…

    “Texas seems determined to wallow in ignorance. Let it.”

    I believe in God and I believe in Evolution, I believe that God created Evolution. Think about this…chickens evolved from lizards that evolved from something else. (chickens and lizards both taste like Chicken and so does a lot of things) or the Not-so-Intelligent Design folks/Texans think….In the beginning there was nothing, darkness, void, then Band/POP/BOOM, in a blink, some guy in clothes walking down a path with a spear on a sunny afternoon looking for deer to feed his family (that in that same instant) popped up from nothing. Come on, only logic, intelligent thinking can come to the correct conclusion? Lets all say it together…E-V-O-L-U-T-I-O-N

  • Tom Delay vs. Pope John Paul II

    Tom Delay attribute the Columbine massacre to the teaching of evolution, “”Our school systems teach the children that they are nothing but glorified apes who are evolutionized [sic] out of some primordial soup.”

    John Paul II’s papal letter proclaims there is no essential conflict between evolutionary science and the world’s largest Christian faith. By distinguishing between body and spirit, his predecessor Pius XII opened the door for Catholic acceptance of evolution. Now, John Paul II goes a step further: “It is indeed remarkable,” he writes, “that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.”

  • MPW and here for a laugh

    I though you might appericiate a quote from a well respected evolutinary theorist.

    “Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. …The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.'” (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)

  • #51 para. 3

    Actually electronics technician network administrator. Unlike most, I want to know about the physical world and don’t belive everything written in a book; I want evidence. I don’t hold other people responsible for teaching me their “truth”; I work at problems till I am sufficiantly educated to form my own opinion.

    (Most of us real scientists don’t think biology is a science anyway. Furthermore, I don’t see how science is going to suffer no matter what theory of origins is used. It’s not like Ev is central to knowlege of biological systems. Personally, I like hypothesis #52.)

  • An overentusiastic MoveOn supporter sent out an Anti-GOP email to everyone in a company I worked for once. Like him, this woman’s offense might have been that she basically SPAMMED the whole department with a Texas domain email address.

    The company had the fellow send out another that explained it was only his own opinion and that he would not be sending out similar emails. It was a bit humiliating and appears to have done the job.

    This woman had authority and maybe they thought that wasn’t enough. Have similar announcements gone out before? I’m not ready to call this a secularist witch hunt yet.

  • #56 – In your excerpt, you left out an important paragraph out of the middle. It reinforces that what Gould is talking about is his hypothesis that Darwinian evolution proceeds, not slowly, through what is called gradualism, but rapidly, through what he called “punctuated equilibrium.” (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium)

    In the last sentence of the paragraph Gould is explicit that he accepts evolution as the fundamental explanation for diversity that it is accepted to be in the scientific world, that it is only the accepted mechanism, gradualism, that he disputes.

    “For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution of this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we must reject, not Darwinism.

    (Italics mine.)

    http://books.google.com/books?id=p9pmRPuWb94C&pg=PA179&sig=r9IMxkscXqWG4Xp8DhOsOkXf0LE (Scroll down to page 182. To read about Huxley’s concern referenced in the above paragraph, scroll up to page 179. Page 181 is missing in this excerpt, but the quotes are there, and you can always get the book at the library.)

    In your comment, #57, you claim that you make a point of learning about a subject for yourself until you are sufficiently educated to form you own opinion, so that other people aren’t teaching you their “truth”. I submit that if you really believe this, you are deceiving yourself. You didn’t even bother to do something as basic as checking the quote. Clearly, you make up your mind in advance, then just look for something to support your preconceived position.

    So far, neither your job title or your written opinions entitle you to call yourself any sort of “scientist”, much less a “real” scientist, much less someone who should be considered an authority on whether biology is science. I think I’ll just go on accepting the judgment of people, who, based on their work and the opinions of their peers, are real scientists, as to what constitutes science, just as I accept the judgment of real doctors over faith healers. Your so-called “opinion” in these matters is ignorant at best, disingenuous at worst, and therefore worthless and irrelevant.

    And I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, may you be blessed by His Noodly Appendages.

  • tooweary, the message you describe (#58) was spam because you were not working for a political party. Had the message been appropriate to the work environment, then the only question would be if proper procedure were followed in sending it out, e.g., had it been reviewed by legal, was upper-level management’s approval required, etc.

    The topic here, a speech by a prominent scientific philosopher, was clearly appropriate to the audience. The only question I have is, was proper procedure followed? My guess would be yes, since she was the state director of science curriculum, likely such emails would be at her discretion. Also, there was no suggestion that she sent it to everybody in sight, only to people she felt would be interested. If you have different information, please share it.

    That having been said, neither do I consider this a “secularist witch hunt.” So far, we have only one, isolated case of some ignorant, knuckle-dragging religious fanatics in Texas pressuring a far more intelligent and decent subordinate to resign. If more follow, we can then see if the religionists are beginning to forget that they live in a secular country, in spite of their ignorant protestations to the contrary, and take whatever steps are necessary to remind them.

  • toowearyforoutrage: “Like him, this woman’s offense might have been that she basically SPAMMED the whole department with a Texas domain email address.”

    Um, no. Christine Comer routinely forwarded emails appropriate to the topic of science and education, to select email lists within and outside of her department, as part of her job. The only difference in this case was that certain of her superiors had recently decided that anything even slightly smacking of support for teaching evolutionary theory was to be squelched, and furthermore, to all appearances were looking for an excuse to get rid of anyone they thought wouldn’t go along with their anti-evolution agenda.

    GalapagosPete: “we have only one, isolated case of some ignorant, knuckle-dragging religious fanatics in Texas pressuring a far more intelligent and decent subordinate to resign.”

    Wish it were that simple. Don McLeroy, the recently promoted head of the state board of ed, is an outspoken creationist crusader with a history of fighting against strong evolution education, and the recently instituted policy of supposed “neutrality” in the evolution/ID debate is tough to interpret as anything other than laying the groundwork for further assaults of that kind.

  • MPW, I’m sure you’re correct, but I’m willing to wait and see if there are enough Texans who raise enough of a fuss over this that the fundamentalist wing nut religionists back off.

    Have to admit, though, it’s been mighty quiet out there. Some editorials, but where’s the public outrage?

    Maybe they just don’t get it.

  • Well, Pete, we can always hope. I’ve actually seen a lot of Texans expressing outrage in comment threads like this one, but I’m not sure how representative they are of the general Texas population. (Texans!! Don’t just complain here, write the school board and the papers and the news shows and your politicians!)

    Part of me wants to see this stopped at this level before it gets worse. Another part of me wants to see the wingnuts go whole hog, get sued and probably lose big, thus adding another legal precedent against this latest variety of creationist manipulation. That would, unfortunately, mean millions lost for Texas education, which like most public educational systems needs every dollar it can get.

  • Comments are closed.