Bush endorses Intelligent Design. Or does he?

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Okay, an altogether.

Erise, bullet, shut up. Please for the love of science shut the fuck up. You are misinterpreting Gould using his definition of "fact" and claiming it therefore applies for the dictionary and rhetorical definition of "fact". It's embarrassing, it's insulting, and frankly it does as much damage to science and evolution as the fucking assholes who claim ID is just as valid. It's a theory. That's all it needs to be. That's what it is. To say it is more or less than that is to attack the principles of science that make it a theory.

Yes, under his definition it is a "fact", but his definition of "fact" is "reliable dataset". Microevolution is a very "reliable dataset" and technique. I use it often in the lab. And guess what, that's the benefit of being a THEORY! THEORIES have reliable datasets that you can work off of because it's a scientific theory. If you can't apply it in the real world or it doesn't work with other theories, it is either wrong or in need of a correlary.

Right now, you're treating Earl like shit and doing my case harm and you know what, that's not cool. I don't agree with Earl's viewpoint of the numbers. Like Liar I look at the numbers and go "those are small, that totally fits" and Earl looks at them and goes "No, no, no." I think he is making a too casual dismissal of a scientific theory (since I can't fathom it, it must be wrong), but that doesn't mean he must accept it or die. It also doesn't mean that evolution is set in stone, undismissable no matter what new evidence comes to light. I'm a very big fan of Gould and Dawkins and Darwin for a very long time, but what you are doing to their theories is wrong and bad science and I want you to stop it NOW.

Pure, macroevolution stems from microevolution. To evolve the species must be affected in a way that favors X new trait to the exclusion of other traits. And each "new" trait doesn't bring the previous trait to extinction. Cockroaches haven't changed forever because nothing has driven them to extinction. There are however cockroach-like bugs with similar wing structures or carapaces or tendencies. Same with crocodiles. Nothing drove them to extinction, thus they have endured seemingly "unchanged". Other species were dominated by larger organisms. Horses are a popular favorite especially when humans became involved because larger horses were selected for at the detriment of the smaller ones.

There was a living experiment done by some bird-watchers back in the Industrial Revolution about a weird change in a certain type of bird that lived near the stacks. Previously white birds were dominant in the population (there were more of them) with occasional black or grey ones. With the smoke stacks changing the color of the sky that served as partial camo against predators, white ones were eaten more often, leading to a "rise" in black and grey ones in the population. Again looking at my daily work, I often have to select a certain trait in a bacterial culture. I as an artifical instrument of evolution add a selectively toxic substance to the culture killing all the cells that aren't the type I want. The ones that survive replicate my added effect and can multiply into an entire culture. Mass production of genetically engineered substances works under similar processes. This is a "living" form of evolution (one in which evolution is the assumption for a current experiment rather than an explanation for a past effect). Mendel also was famous for his evolutionary changes with his peas. Then there are dogs which is a living constant, well-documented stream of consciously chosen and randomly chosen evolutionary experiments. New species were created through the mixtures of other dogs or by selectively breeding for a specific trait.

Cantdog, let me look again at what you said and respond later.

And go Colly. Huzzah.

 

[thebullet]

Earl said:
Evolution fits most of the facts very well, because it was designed as a theory to fit those facts.

You are wrong. Evolution is the process AND evolution describes the process. The process itself happens. While there is certainly plenty of wiggle room in describing the process, the process itself remains the same.


This website has devolved to the point that now Pure is pointing us towards calm, well-organized "new creationist" websites.
That's encouraging. At least these people will be pleasant while they lie to us.


Pure says:

see esp. the 'living fossils' links, which seemingly pose a problem for standard or even 'punctuated' neoDarwinian theory. how do we explain the cockroach's rather unchanged structure for 300 million odd years

Why do you think that 'living fossils' "pose a problem" for Darwinian theory. Nothing in evolutionary theory says that EVERYTHING MUST evolve over time. On the contrary, evolution goes in fits and spurts and sometimes not at all, as determined by ecological/environmental pressure on the species involved.

I read a book a couple of years ago about these "living fossil" species. I checked my library but couldn't find it - it's probably in a box in my attic by now. But the book was very interesting and tried to identify what about these particular species allowed them to go through eons with little or no physical changes to their structure. As I recall, the author posited that the majority of these creatures lived in 'fringe' environments; places where most other creatures/plants prefer not to dwell.

For example, the horseshoe crab can live in brakish water quite confortably, while most other species can't. This trait alone may have been enough to allow this strange creature to survive through the ages.

The Coelacanth apparently lives along the coast of East Africa but for the most part these fish dwell off of the Comoro Islands in the Indian Ocean, in caves deep down. The water there is apparnantly oxygon deficient and there just isn't much of an environment for other species of fish to survive. But again, the coelacanth survives nicely, and has done so for 400 million years. There have been so many coelacanths caught recently that there is a fear that their environment is being threatened by fishing their prey species. That means that the coelacanths are roaming farther and farther from their home territories to survive. Perhaps we are now applying the final stroke to the species that nature couldn't kill for almost a half billion years.

_______________________________________________________________

The existence of 'living fossils' in no way negates any evolutionary theory of which I am aware. I guess that these creationists see them as some kind of anomoly and wish to throw any monkey wrench they can come up with into the mix. But the fact of the matter is, of the miriad of species that have existed on earth over geological time, only a handful have survived the test of time.

The vast majority of species come into existence, live rather stable lives for a while, and then go extinct. Some of their number may have made the next step into another species (yes through punctuated equilibrium, maybe) - mostly because they were isolated from the main group of the species for some reason or another. Those isolated few adapted to fit an available ecological niche and rather quickly turned into something different than what had existed before.

The 'living fossil' species found themselve an environment that they liked and which remained relatively stable over millions and millions of years. Because their chosen environment was one in which other species did not adapt well, they had fewer predators than other species.

What it nets out to is, the 'living fossils' are the evolutionary equivilent of lottery winners. They are the exceptions that prove the rule.

 

[TheEarl]

think he is making a too casual dismissal of a scientific theory (since I can't fathom it, it must be wrong), but that doesn't mean he must accept it or die. It also doesn't mean that evolution is set in stone, undismissable no matter what new evidence comes to light.

Luc: For the record, (as I've said many times already in this thread), I believe in evolution. It's my theory of choice and I'm firmly convinced that it's correct. However, I like playing devil's advocate to these things and I personally believe that evolution was started and was occasionally nudged by a Deity, so that slants my opinions.

And my opinion is not based on 'I can't fathom it, it must be wrong'. I fathom evolution very well thank you and I'm not impressed with being labelled as closed-minded.

All I'm saying is the deveolpment of certain advanced features has odds which are substantially higher than you'd expect to pay off. I cannot produce the numbers as of course, no-one knows exactly what the chances are of these things, but even with the reproduction you've suggested over billions of years, they're still a little on the high side. It could easily be chance, but these are the occasions where my belief in a guiding Deity steps in. However that is belief and thus completely O/T.

If I can't fathom something, then I will ask for information until I do fathom it, or I stay myself the hell out of the argument. I do not blunder along with no knowledge and, if my knowledge is lacking, I'm usually ready to adjust my opinions when I find new data. Colly will back me up on that after our discussion on Depleted Uranium. Please don't accuse me of being close-minded.

The Earl

 

[TheEarl]

You are wrong. Evolution is the process AND evolution describes the process. The process itself happens. While there is certainly plenty of wiggle room in describing the process, the process itself remains the same.

And the process of the sun rotating around the Earth was well established until new information was discovered using new technology. It fitted all the tests available at the time too.

I keep repeating these examples in the hope that you might open the other eye long enough to the possibility that you might be wrong. I don't believe you are, but I can't believe you don't get the irony of accusing Creationists of blindly believing something as fact, whilst trumpetting your POV as absolute gospel.

The Earl

 

[thebullet]

Lucifer Carrol said:

There was a living experiment done by some bird-watchers back in the Industrial Revolution about a weird change in a certain type of bird that lived near the stacks. Previously white birds were dominant in the population (there were more of them) with occasional black or grey ones. With the smoke stacks changing the color of the sky that served as partial camo against predators, white ones were eaten more often, leading to a "rise" in black and grey ones in the population.

Unless you are referring to a different story, the creatures in question were not birds but were the peppered moth. Most of the moths in a certain area were white. But when the smokestacks began depositing soot, the white ones were more easily seen by their avian predators, while the black moths survived.
Recently there has been a dispute over whether this story is true or not, and it has been removed from most biological textbooks.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I understand what you're saying. I do know a fair amount on the subject and I in no way offer the odds as 'evidence' for my belief. However, just as you said that really smart people can't comprehend the number of generations, no-one can comprehend the odds either. So it's a catch-22, everyone can bring forward theories, but no-one can easily compute anything. So it's a question of belief, which is unarguable anyway and the reason I tried to duck out of the thread earlier. Failed miserably, didn't I?

The Earl

Er... I mislike your twist at the end as it sounds almost Joian, but I get your gist and agree that we agree to disagree.

I said they were staggering (i.e. fuck that's big), but not uncomprehendable especially in terms of scale (whoa nellie) (or i.e. math). But again, let's agree to disagree on this subject as I doubt I will sway you and I know you will not sway me.

 

[erise]

Okay, an altogether.

Erise, bullet, shut up. Please for the love of science shut the fuck up. You are misinterpreting Gould using his definition of "fact" and claiming it therefore applies for the dictionary and rhetorical definition of "fact". It's embarrassing, it's insulting, and frankly it does as much damage to science and evolution as the fucking assholes who claim ID is just as valid. It's a theory. That's all it needs to be. That's what it is. To say it is more or less than that is to attack the principles of science that make it a theory.

Yes, under his definition it is a "fact", but his definition of "fact" is "reliable dataset". Microevolution is a very "reliable dataset" and technique. I use it often in the lab. And guess what, that's the benefit of being a THEORY! THEORIES have reliable datasets that you can work off of because it's a scientific theory. If you can't apply it in the real world or it doesn't work with other theories, it is either wrong or in need of a correlary.

Right now, you're treating Earl like shit and doing my case harm and you know what, that's not cool. I don't agree with Earl's viewpoint of the numbers. Like Liar I look at the numbers and go "those are small, that totally fits" and Earl looks at them and goes "No, no, no." I think he is making a too casual dismissal of a scientific theory (since I can't fathom it, it must be wrong), but that doesn't mean he must accept it or die. It also doesn't mean that evolution is set in stone, undismissable no matter what new evidence comes to light. I'm a very big fan of Gould and Dawkins and Darwin for a very long time, but what you are doing to their theories is wrong and bad science and I want you to stop it NOW.

Ok, since somebody obviously shoved a telephone pole where the sun doesn't shine, I will indulge you. You seem passionate enough about, well, something to pop an actual vein if I was to engage in a discussion with you.

But for the record, I have not adressed nor interpreted Gould. If you got that impression, you must have read my posts with the wrong side of the head. So I just bow out with a final question. Where and how did I poop in your cereal, to the extent that I'm not even worthy to adress with more than a shattap, beyotch?

Over and out, whoever the fuck you are.



and a since you sound like you need it.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Luc: For the record, (as I've said many times already in this thread), I believe in evolution. It's my theory of choice and I'm firmly convinced that it's correct. However, I like playing devil's advocate to these things and I personally believe that evolution was started and was occasionally nudged by a Deity, so that slants my opinions.

And my opinion is not based on 'I can't fathom it, it must be wrong'. I fathom evolution very well thank you and I'm not impressed with being labelled as closed-minded.

All I'm saying is the deveolpment of certain advanced features has odds which are substantially higher than you'd expect to pay off. I cannot produce the numbers as of course, no-one knows exactly what the chances are of these things, but even with the reproduction you've suggested over billions of years, they're still a little on the high side. It could easily be chance, but these are the occasions where my belief in a guiding Deity steps in. However that is belief and thus completely O/T.

If I can't fathom something, then I will ask for information until I do fathom it, or I stay myself the hell out of the argument. I do not blunder along with no knowledge and, if my knowledge is lacking, I'm usually ready to adjust my opinions when I find new data. Colly will back me up on that after our discussion on Depleted Uranium. Please don't accuse me of being close-minded.

The Earl

Sorry, that was in response to your stated point you tried to make regarding that the odds were too big to be comprehended.

I do not believe you close-minded. It's an unfortunate habit I've developed in these types of debates regarding that very paradox. The ID proponents are far more guilty than you are of it or perhaps I should say ar exclusively guilty of it in terms of them + you (ick, i feel Joian doing this). I mislike the assumption many make about this whole spectrum of biology which essentially boils down to "It's too complicated for me to figure out so fuck it, god did it all". It's not as complicated as everyone makes it (okay complicated as all fuck, but not as complicated and as unfathomable as people like to make it. It's probably not a good habit to use it every time that argument is made, but it's a habit I've gotten into out of frustration. Speaking as a scientist whose field is deep inside the complexity of the cell and its minute workings and connections, I must say it is not unfathomable at all.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Lucifer Carrol said:

Unless you are referring to a different story, the creatures in question were not birds but were the peppered moth. Most of the moths in a certain area were white. But when the smokestacks began depositing soot, the white ones were more easily seen by their avian predators, while the black moths survived.
Recently there has been a dispute over whether this story is true or not, and it has been removed from most biological textbooks.

Yeah, that one. Yeah, that's the famous one. There are many other similar ones that have done similar spot research under modern effects. Environmental scientists do those types of effects all the time and DDT's effects on the food chain used a bit of it. There are also some researches which tracked a mixed color group into a new population and observed the change that occurred then. Real time ones are also studies following a major environmental change in an area (pond to swamp after draining, etc...) to see how it is disrupted and changes. The moth one is simply the best and most famous example of evolution in action (if it happened).

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

To me it is (known after the fact, I mean). I don't do biology for a living. Luc refers obliquely to fruit fly and petri dish genetic experimentation, but I myself have no clue how predictive they can be at this stage. They may nave a pretty good model and be able to produce changes to suit.

I know a computer programmer who went to school in California. He bought a selection of beer and wine yeasts and stole some lab equipment. In dishes he let yeast digest the sugars and expire in its wastes, to wit, alcohol. He had a meter apparatus to measure alcohol percentage, and reseeded the dishes with the "winning" yeasts. Fourth time around, he and his roommate had made a wine yeast that could tolerate twelve or thirteen percent alcohol. Then they made homemade wine. Strong homemade wine, which they called Mad Monk. Mad Monk sucked, but Mad Monk III was quite drinkable, because they learned a little more about wine making. So that could be seen as a predictable evolutionary experiment, if you aren't picky.

But seriously, all I know is the digests of after-the-fact stuff. Biologists doubtless can do a limited amount of predicting, I imagine, but I only know about Mad Monk.

Other critters do indeed find themselves challenged while the trilobites persist. Apes change while sharks remain fairly constant, even now. The process does not resemble a movement allegro following the largo, with the whole orchestra combining to shift tempo, not usually. Each gene writes its own history, independently. A global cataclysm, such as seems to have marked off the age of the birds from that of the mammals, will still be a challenge to the survivability of a lot of the orchestra at once. But sharks pretty much look the same on both sides of that line.

Well genetic engineering (the selecting for X gene, the splicing of X gene in another organism, the selecting for X gene and any mixture thereof plus other stuff) uses a lot of micro-microevolution techniques and basic genetic principles. They also inadvertently allow for and occassional solve for distortion effects due to mutation (the college textbooks are filled with various shit that can happen mutation wise and how to calculate how likely that is). It's pretty predictive and there are sciences and studies built on improving prediction techniques. Mad Monk is a good example though as a modern Mendel or Dog echo.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Ok, since somebody obviously shoved a telephone pole where the sun doesn't shine, I will indulge you. You seem passionate enough about, well, something to pop an actual vein if I was to engage in a discussion with you.

But for the record, I have not adressed nor interpreted Gould. If you got that impression, you must have read my posts with the wrong side of the head. So I just bow out with a final question. Where and how did I poop in your cereal, to the extent that I'm not even worthy to adress with more than a shattap, beyotch?

Over and out, whoever the fuck you are.



and a since you sound like you need it.

<shrug>

It's in address to the fact point. It is not nor needs to be a fact. To call it such is an affront to science. To say it is indistinguishable from iron-clad fact is wrong. A theory is what encapsulates it and a theory is all that it needs to be.

The fuck I am is a microbiologist bioengineering graduate student. This is the world I live in (ivory towers and all). Yeah, I'm a wee bit persnippetty (anti-bullshit translation: complete and utter asshole yelly pants), but it's a sore spot the eternal tug-of-war that's played with science from both sides. One saying it's iron-clad fact and the other saying it's just a theory as if that at all diminishes it. It doesn't need fancy additions or clarifiers. It is a scientific theory which means it is open to new future evidence or revisions, but can be tested, used in experiments, etc... today. It doesn't need be fact.

 

[shereads]

In scientific use, theory is the highest accolade that can be given to a school of thought. A theory provides the best explanation, so far, of the vast majority of the observable phenomena that come under its purview.

So we have the Darwin's Theory of Evolution, Newton's Theory of Motion, Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

In their respective fields, these theories cover most of the bases.

And it gets up my nose, just a little, when people use theory when they mean hypothesis.

It gets up more than my nose when people misuse those labels deliberately, to make it appear that the debate about Intelligent Design/Creationism/Evolution is a debate about fairness, and not about the appropriateness of eliminating scientific method from the study of science.

By arguing that evolution is "just a theory, like Intelligent Design," they create the illusion that this is a fairness issue. It's not by error that the word "theory" is misused in every discussion of this topic. It's marketing.

Marketing works when it targets weaknesses. In this case, the weakness is the fact that a vast majority of people don't examine issues in enough depth to know that the crux of this argument is the distinction between theory and hypothesis.

Just by replacing the word "religion" with the innocuous-sounding "faith-based," the White House was able to funnel public funds to religious groups, setting a precedent that not only re-draws the boundary between church and state, but allows a White House appointee to decide who qualifies - effectively establishing which religions are credible. The Constitution was re-interpreted without anyone noticing.

You can't go far wrong with a strategy that relies on the majority to choose sides based on the soundbite they heard before they changed the channel.

So it makes perfect sense, from a marketing standpoint, to discard the scientific definition of "theory" and use it to describe any idea that has the backing of some scientists. People who'd feel threatened if they knew that their kids' science teachers might be forced to teach phony science for political reasons, will support the change for the sake of fairness. All you have to do is make the accepted theory seem no more or less phony and suspect than the others.

 

[shereads]

And the horse evolutionary sequence is rather clearly defined. The major differences are in the jaw and legs. The jaw develops a more pronounced diastema (gap between nipping teeth and molars) at each step, making the animals more efficient grazers. And the toes disappear, becoming a hoof, and the cannon bone becomes more pronounced making the animal more fleet of foot.

Another difference is that Eohippus was almost impossible to ride, if you were taller than a squirrel monkey. That's why cattle ranching didn't become practical until the Pliocene period.

 

[Pure]

hi the bullet,

in an otherwise interesting posting about 'living fossils' you say,

This website [thread?] has devolved to the point that now Pure is pointing us towards calm, well-organized "new creationist" websites.

perhaps pure thinks you should be aware of the arguments of the more enlightened of one's opponents. or maybe just likes to see devolution of threads.

another interesting 'reconciliationist' website

http://www.asa3.org/

 

[shereads]

Commentary: Theory vs. hypothesis

Semantics help explain the significant difference between evolution principles and creationism

By Marcel Harmon
June 29, 2005

TODAY'S BYLINE: Marcel Harmon, an anthropologist and engineer, is a partner and co-founder of Human Inquiry, a practical anthropological consulting firm in Albuquerque.

I have this theory. Well, it's really more of a hypothesis. Theory, hypothesis - what's the difference, you might ask. And that's precisely my point.

It seems to me there's a general lack of understanding how these terms are defined by the sciences, versus how they are loosely used by the general public on a day-to-day basis.

In the sciences, a theory is a framework used to describe and understand the world around us. Such a framework is recognized as a theory only after a firm empirical basis for its body of knowledge has been established. This is done through such things as extensive and long-term experimentation, observation and intense peer review.

A theory is often initially generated from a hypothesis - a proposed explanation for an observed phenomenon or set of phenomena. This differs from conjecture, which is at best an untested guess based on anything from nonrepeatable experiments to common sense to religious mysticism to that ache in your grandmother's knee.

But people generally use these three terms interchangeably to refer to any type of speculation. So, your eccentric friend's "theory" that Elvis, JFK and Princess Diana are all alive and well and residing in Nevada's Area 51 while awaiting transport to their home in the Alpha Centauri star system is only a theory in the layman's sense of the term - speculation or pure imagination.

Mind you, I'm not proposing we do away with the general, day-to-day use of these terms. I would simply like to see more people become aware of their strict meanings in the sciences.

For those who haven't by now skipped to the sports pages, you may be wondering if my initial hypothesis regarding people's lack of understanding of the scientific definitions is more of a conjecture. After all, I haven't presented any data or observations to base it on.

Unfortunately, there is plenty of supporting data. Just look at any story in the media regarding the very public debate playing out between proponents of evolution and proponents of intelligent design. This debate has been held in New Mexico since the mid 1990s. Most recently, KNME-Channel 5 declined to run a documentary supporting intelligent design, and proponents of the idea cried foul.

Here's a comment by William Harris, a member of the Kansas Science Standards Committee, which exemplifies the argument for including intelligent design in high school studies: "Public science education is an institution. It appoints a teacher to be a referee among ideas. . . . Nobody would tolerate a football game where the referee was obviously biased."

In other words, we need to expose our students to all competing ideas, giving equal time and weight to each one. And after all, that does seem to be the most democratic thing to do, right? What could be more American?

The problem with this line of reasoning is that evolution and intelligent design are nowhere close to being on an equal footing, from a scientific standpoint.

Yes, Darwinian evolution is a theory, but it's a scientific theory. It has survived rigorous testing for more than 100 years and forms the scientific foundation for modern biology. Scientific debate regarding evolutionary theory centers on the details of how it occurred, not if it occurred.

At best, intelligent design is a hypothesis - a supposition that a certain level of complexity implies an intelligent creator. At worst it's mere conjecture. But if it is a hypothesis, it's a poor one, because it seeks to prove an idea rooted in faith. It seeks to answer the ultimate question of why there is life - a question more suited for philosophy and religion than the empirically based evidence required in the sciences.

The fact that there are gaps in our knowledge of how life evolved doesn't mean such phenomenons are too complex to be explained by anything but an intelligent creator - whether that creator be Yahweh, Mother Earth or some mad alien scientist from Alpha Centauri with too much time on his hands.

There is no reason to think these gaps won't eventually be filled in, as has occurred repeatedly over the history of modern science.

Because of this, the academic debate surrounding intelligent design should play out at the university level - the traditional setting for debating new scientific hypotheses.

And this is why it's important for the general public and school board members in New Mexico to understand the meanings of the words theory and hypothesis. Otherwise, our high school science curriculums will be created in a state of scientific ignorance - doing New Mexico children and society as a whole a disservice.

Of course this is all just a theory of mine - er, I mean, a hypothesis.

 

[thebullet]

Sheread's article stated:
It seems to me there's a general lack of understanding how these terms are defined by the sciences, versus how they are loosely used by the general public on a day-to-day basis.

This has been my point from the beginning, and people like Coleen and Lucifer Caroll think I'm an asshole for insisting on calling evolution a fact rather than a theory.

The average joe out in East Jipip understands one thing: a theory is someone's opinion. That's why Intelligent Design is flying. There is the 'theory' of evolution. Okay, that's one idea. Now the eduNazis give us the 'theory' of Intelligent Design. Any reasonable person would have to consider both of those possible theories in their assessment of what the origins of life and species were, right?

While Lucifer Carrol calls me a dumb fuck and Colly shakes her head at my unbending stupidity, we are losing this battle because of semantics. The right wing isn't good for much, but they sure as hell understand propaganda.

It's such a typically arrogant response by the intelligencia: "Fact" is inaccurate; it's a "theory" because only 99.9987% of the data are in and we are still waiting on that .0013% (and by the way we will never be able to go all the way to 100% sure, and so a "theory" it shall remain.)

Tell this to our grandchildren when they are reading science books that have been made politically and religiously correct, and therefore are devoid of hard science. Tell this to future generations of Americans as this country de-evolves into a third-world nation due to our ignorance.

Embrace it, Coleen, Lucifer Carrol, et. al: It's fact, not theory - at least for public consumption

Or it's going to be history.

And by the way: articles like the one Shereads posted are a total waste of time in trying to 'educate' the great unwashed. By the time the intelligencia has successfully explained the subtle difference between scientific theory and actual fact, the battle will have been long lost.

 

[The_Darkness]

Bullet, only in states below the upper 50% in education will any of what you said just come true.

You're right, there is a debate on semantics here, and in a war of words, you often find yourself on the short end of the stick.

I didn't read through this thread from begining to end because usually half-assed political threads out here are greatly contributed to by half-asses who've really got no good goddamn idea what the fuck is what and they vastly out-weigh those who do and then they get pissed off and bail.

This thread seems to be of little difference.

Have fun, kids.

 

[thebullet]

The Darkness said:
Bullet, only in states below the upper 50% in education will any of what you said just come true.

Initially you are right. Perhaps I'm sounding the alarm too soon.

But as something like this gains momentum, before you know it the barn door is closed and the horse is already gone.

Or the religious extremists will put their people on the boards of directors of the educational book companies and force a standarized reduction in the intelligence level of our science books - just for the sake of not decreasing profit margins, you understand.

 

[The_Darkness]

Initially you are right. Perhaps I'm sounding the alarm too soon.

But as something like this gains momentum, before you know it the barn door is closed and the horse is already gone.

Or the religious extremists will put their people on the boards of directors of the educational book companies and force a standarized reduction in the intelligence level of our science books - just for the sake of not decreasing profit margins, you understand.

Sometime in the Fall of '03, there was some state school official in GA that decided to strike the word evolution from all text books in the state.

I wrote her a letter....and judging from the follow-up article on CNN.com, I wasn't alone. I believe she recinded the statement and appologized.

 

[thebullet]

One final thought (I hope):

We sit here arguing about 'theory' vs. 'fact', which is exactly what they want us to do: spin our wheels fighting with each other while they have the playing field to themselves.

The real issue isn't about intelligent design vs. evolution. The real issue is that the extreme right is trying to use this to insinuate religion into the classroom in the guise of science.

This is another right wing backdoor attack on the US Constitution, directly undercutting the seperation of church and state.

Instead of telling erise and I to shut up, maybe you had better wake up.

 

[Guest]

Bullet, only in states below the upper 50% in education will any of what you said just come true. . .

Have fun, kids.

Not true, Darkness, I'm afraid.

http://www.morganquitno.com/edrank.htm


States Ranked: Smartest to Dumbest, 2004-05 rankings

The smartest state in the union for the second consecutive year is Massachusetts.

The dumbest, for the third year in a row, is New Mexico.

These are the findings of the Education State Rankings, a survey by Morgan Quitno Press of hundreds of public school systems in all 50 states. States were graded on a variety of factors based on how they compare to the national average. These included such positive attributes as per-pupil expenditures, public high school graduation rates, average class size, student reading and math proficiency, and pupil-teacher ratios. States received negative points for high drop-out rates and physical violence.

How does YOUR state rank?


1. Massachusetts
2. Connecticut
3. Vermont
4. New Jersey
5. Wisconsin
6. New York
7. Minnesota
8. Iowa
9. Pennsylvania
10. Montana


11. Maine
12. Virginia
13. Nebraska
14. New Hampshire
15. Kansas
16. Wyoming
17. Indiana
18. Maryland
19. North Dakota
20. Ohio


21. Colorado
22. South Dakota
23. Rhode Island
24. Illinois
25. North Carolina
26. Missouri
27. Delaware
28. Utah
29. Idaho
30. Washington


31. Michigan
32. South Carolina
33 - 34. Texas and West Virginia (tie)
35. Oregon
36. Arkansas
37. Kentucky
38. Georgia
39. Florida
40. Oklahoma


41. Tennessee
42. Hawaii
43. California
44. Alabama
45. Alaska
46. Louisiana
47. Mississippi
48. Arizona
49. Nevada
50. New Mexico



My current state of residence? Kansas. Smart state but religious state, easily swayed by the ID snake-oil sellers.

It seems many people can be taken in by this nonsense.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

This has been my point from the beginning, and people like Coleen and Lucifer Caroll think I'm an asshole for insisting on calling evolution a fact rather than a theory.

The average joe out in East Jipip understands one thing: a theory is someone's opinion. That's why Intelligent Design is flying. There is the 'theory' of evolution. Okay, that's one idea. Now the eduNazis give us the 'theory' of Intelligent Design. Any reasonable person would have to consider both of those possible theories in their assessment of what the origins of life and species were, right?

While Lucifer Carrol calls me a dumb fuck and Colly shakes her head at my unbending stupidity, we are losing this battle because of semantics. The right wing isn't good for much, but they sure as hell understand propaganda.

It's such a typically arrogant response by the intelligencia: "Fact" is inaccurate; it's a "theory" because only 99.9987% of the data are in and we are still waiting on that .0013% (and by the way we will never be able to go all the way to 100% sure, and so a "theory" it shall remain.)

Tell this to our grandchildren when they are reading science books that have been made politically and religiously correct, and therefore are devoid of hard science. Tell this to future generations of Americans as this country de-evolves into a third-world nation due to our ignorance.

Embrace it, Coleen, Lucifer Carrol, et. al: It's fact, not theory - at least for public consumption

Or it's going to be history.

And by the way: articles like the one Shereads posted are a total waste of time in trying to 'educate' the great unwashed. By the time the intelligencia has successfully explained the subtle difference between scientific theory and actual fact, the battle will have been long lost.

If we are to "save" evolutionary theory by insiting it's a fact, then we have already lost. If you remove the underpinning of evolutionary theory being theory, being subject to the same tests and caveats as any other theory being subject to the scientific method, then they have already won, because you helped them usher sceince as a disciplne out the door.

The response of Luc and myself is not intelligensia arrogance, it's paying heed to the precepts of what is basically his life's devotion and is for me a subject of great interest. We do not elevate a theory to a fact, because the methodology of science demands we do not. If we do, we have abandoned the methodology that sets sceince above merely guessing.

If, in your attempt to keep up with the right wing joneses, you start casting theory as fact, you've already joined them in their agenda to impose ignorance and stifle critical thought. You have now devolved the argument of wheter ID is science to a simple squabble over whose dogma is going to be taught in schools.

 

[thebullet]

Coleen said:
If we are to "save" evolutionary theory by insiting it's a fact, then we have already lost.

So your plan is to make sophistic arguments, staying true to your ideals of keeping your words absolutely 'true' while the other side walks off with the prize.

Congradulate yourself on the purity of your ideals. See ya' in church.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Not true, Darkness, I'm afraid.

http://www.morganquitno.com/edrank.htm


States Ranked: Smartest to Dumbest, 2004-05 rankings

The smartest state in the union for the second consecutive year is Massachusetts.

The dumbest, for the third year in a row, is New Mexico.

These are the findings of the Education State Rankings, a survey by Morgan Quitno Press of hundreds of public school systems in all 50 states. States were graded on a variety of factors based on how they compare to the national average. These included such positive attributes as per-pupil expenditures, public high school graduation rates, average class size, student reading and math proficiency, and pupil-teacher ratios. States received negative points for high drop-out rates and physical violence.

How does YOUR state rank?


1. Massachusetts
2. Connecticut
3. Vermont
4. New Jersey
5. Wisconsin
6. New York
7. Minnesota
8. Iowa
9. Pennsylvania
10. Montana


11. Maine
12. Virginia
13. Nebraska
14. New Hampshire
15. Kansas
16. Wyoming
17. Indiana
18. Maryland
19. North Dakota
20. Ohio


21. Colorado
22. South Dakota
23. Rhode Island
24. Illinois
25. North Carolina
26. Missouri
27. Delaware
28. Utah
29. Idaho
30. Washington


31. Michigan
32. South Carolina
33 - 34. Texas and West Virginia (tie)
35. Oregon
36. Arkansas
37. Kentucky
38. Georgia
39. Florida
40. Oklahoma


41. Tennessee
42. Hawaii
43. California
44. Alabama
45. Alaska
46. Louisiana
47. Mississippi
48. Arizona
49. Nevada
50. New Mexico



My current state of residence? Kansas. Smart state but religious state, easily swayed by the ID snake-oil sellers.

It seems many people can be taken in by this nonsense.

Love you Sarrah, but that says little about intelligence. You will notice the North east owns the top. If you figure expenditure per pupil, that has nothing to do with how they score, but it will shift the balance towards states where higher cost of living demands higher expenditure per pupil while negatively mpacting states with lower cost of living. And it has zero to do with the way they score on IQ tests or the amount of knowledge they have accumulated.

It would be the same as NFL scouts rating combine players by how much their school systems spent on them.

It has fuck all to do with the student's scores, but allows you to skew your information in the direction you wish.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

So your plan is to make sophistic arguments, staying true to your ideals of keeping your words absolutely 'true' while the other side walks off with the prize.

Congradulate yourself on the purity of your ideals. See ya' in church.

I haven't used any sophistry here, Mr. Ad hominim attack. I don't need it. Especially with you, where answering with sophistic tactics would simply make this thread an exercise in rhetoric.

I can defend evolution as a theory while showing ID isn't a thoery. And I don't need sophistry to win my points. that goes with the more educated crowd here as well as with Mississippi rednecks. I've argued it with both and come away with my shirt.

YOU are making the debate a take all battle that must be won at any cost. YOU are casting yourself in the very mold of the IDers to beat them at their own game. And you have the chutzpah to accuse me of sophistry?

All you are doing is showing the same kind of rigid, inflexibility of thought that you constantly berate in the far right. You're just showing the far left is just as rigid, just ans inflexible and still just as wrong.