California: Board OKs Darwin challenge - Alex Branning Responds
alex.b...@gmail.com
There has been so much controversy over the past week regarding the
recently passed Science Philosophy document (
http://www.integrityinacademics.com ) in the Lancaster School District.
I was invited by Marc to share my views here, and I thought it would be
a great opportunity to share my thoughts.
First, reading through the original thread on the decision in
California I realize that there are so many people that have the wrong
idea over what this decision means. I know that the media is describing
it as anti-evolution (they've sensationalized the story) but this
Science Philosophy document is not an attack on evolution, nor is it a
"backdoor" for the creationists. It simply allows (even encourages) the
teachers to have discussions about science in the classroom. Evolution
is mentioned only once in the entire document, and even then it is only
to point out that it should be taught as theory, not "unalterable
fact." I'm sure we all agree that makes sense.
Second, my motives have been questioned. Because of the scare tactics
and fear-mongering of the NCSE and other organizations, it is an
automatic response to put anyone who even resembles an
anti-evolutionist in the "creationism" camp - and then to immediately
assume that I want to bring the Bible into the science class. These
things couldn't be further from the truth. The motives behind this move
are the sinking test scores - students don't care about science and
they are failing the class miserably. While my idea to promote
discussion (and hopefully pique their curiosity at the same time) may
be off the mark, we must do something!
I appreciate the invitation to share my side of the story.
Regards,
Alex Branning
Integrity in Academics
http://www.integrityinacademics.com
John Harshman
That was seriously disingenuous. First, your organization is
specifically set up to " improve the way evolution is taught in the
local schools". Not just all science, but evolution in particular.
Second, the word "evolution" appears only once in the document, but
evolution is singled out for special treatment, and is the only area of
science actually mentioned. Why? Isn't it also true that atomic theory,
the refraction of light, and the existence of electrons should be taught
"as theory, not unalterable fact"? If not, what's the difference?
You may be entirely innocent here, but I doubt it. Creationists have
lately been forced to lie about their motives and enter in disguise,
since the direct approach has consistently been found unconstitutional.
And your approach here is exactly the sort of thing that creationists
have done elsewhere. Is that merely coincidence?
Anyway, how is any policy that is explicitly and strictly about
evolution going to significantly help science test scores?
Ron O
This sounds like the same lame stuff that creationists are always
spouting. They talk a good game, but what is it that they want to
teach?
Give us a sample lesson plan. What are you going to teach, how are you
going to teach it, what do you expect the students to learn from the
lesson and how are you going to evaluate the students on the material
that you think that they should have learned.
Not having anything of value to teach is one of the problems with
creationists like yourself. Why concentrate on biological evolution?
Isn't it a lame excuse to make the claims that you are making when you
don't believe them yourself?
Prove it. Demonstrate that you know what you want to teach and that
you know how to teach it. Just making claims that you can teach this
stuff honestly and with integrity has been just talk. Do more than
talk. You should have had a lesson plan that demonstrated that you had
something to teach before you got the board to put out this statement.
Why didn't you do that? Shouldn't you have demonstrated that you had
something to teach before you conned the board in to putting out that
statement? How are you going to work the "problems" with evolution
into this course? How are you going to set the students straight? If
evolution isn't the deal, why does your web site claim that it is?
Produce the lesson plan if you have any integrity at all. You should
have done it from the beginning. How did you con the board into
issuing the statement without a lesson plan? Why did they believe that
you could teach the subject honestly without such evidence, when they
just have to read the paper about Dover, Ohio and Kansas? They even
know their own reasons for backing you probably have nothing to do with
science education.
It isn't the scientific taliban that is the problem. It is the guys
like yourself that either don't have a clue or don't care. If you
wouldn't do stupid things like this would any science educators have to
object?
It is simple, tell us what you want to teach and how you are going to
teach it. The statement is bogus until you can demonstrate that you
know what you are talking about. Have you ever encountered a
creationists organization that really had something worth teaching in
the public schools? Do you have any examples of honest creationist
sources of information that you can use for this class? Where are you
going to get your information on science? You could be the first so go
for it.
Ron Okimoto
wf3h
alex.b...@gmail.com wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> There has been so much controversy over the past week regarding the
> recently passed Science Philosophy document (
> http://www.integrityinacademics.com ) in the Lancaster School District.
> I was invited by Marc to share my views here, and I thought it would be
> a great opportunity to share my thoughts.
>
amazing the orwellian doubletalk of the christianists. as they attack
the very foundations of western civilization...logic, reason,
empiricism, and seek to replace it with a theocratic state, they do so
under the guise of 'freedom'.
what they are really referring to, of course, is the 'freedom' of
christianist/islamist theocrats to determine values for everyone. since
they believe they have the 'truth', and part of this 'truth' is their
'freedom' to force it on everyone else, they believe it's illegitimate
to partition science from religion.
the attack on civilzation is intense, deep, and widespread. while alex
double talks his way through this issue, proof of his
christianist/islamist focus is the discussion of evolution.
why evolution? why specifically THIS theory? what possible reason is
there to discuss evolution alone, instead of science? what possible
value could islamist/christianist theology have to add to science?
the answer is that they wish to eviscerate independent thought, and to
bring ALL of science under islamist/christianist control. evolution,
which contradicts a literalist approach to scripture, is fatal to their
argument, so it MUST be the first theory in science to be destroyed.
it's no accident that both christianists and islamists both portray
evolution as anti-god, anti-religion, etc.
christianists say they are fighting for academic freedom. but there is
a difference between being gullible and being open minded, or, as one
commentator put it, 'dont be so open minded that your brains fall out.'
alex isn't interested in science, or children, or the future of the US.
he's interested in religion, specifically the aspect of religion which
enables it to control the way information flows in a free society.
he's against it. christianists and islamists always are. because to
believe in freedom is to believe in suicide.
John Harshman
Ooh, here's a nice giveaway. On the web site there is a teacher's
petition, and here is the full text:
" I support broadening the scientific education of our students to
include scientific evidence that poses challenges to Darwin's
evolutionary theory."
Now just what sort of evidence are we talking about? Perhaps using
Pandas and People as a supplementary text? Integrity in Academics is a
fraud. You should be ashamed.
neverbetter
alex.b...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
> Second, my motives have been questioned. Because of the scare tactics
> and fear-mongering of the NCSE and other organizations, it is an
> automatic response to put anyone who even resembles an
> anti-evolutionist in the "creationism" camp - and then to immediately
> assume that I want to bring the Bible into the science class. These
> things couldn't be further from the truth. The motives behind this move
> are the sinking test scores - students don't care about science and
> they are failing the class miserably. While my idea to promote
> discussion (and hopefully pique their curiosity at the same time) may
> be off the mark, we must do something!
I don't see how it's going to make them more interested in science and
improve their scores if you simply tell them that you think that the
theory of evolution is bogus. Would you be interested in learning
something that ain't even true? If I had to save sinking test scores
I'd suggest identifying the problems in the science education in your
area and fixing them. I don't know if you need to hire more competent
teachers, choose better textbooks, allow more money in the budget for
materials and equipment or what but I doubt that a simple statement
saying that evolution is just a hunch is going to make a difference for
the better.
Dave
> [...]
> I appreciate the invitation to share my side of the story.
There are liars and then there are bald-faced liars and then there are
stupid bald-faced liars.
Zachriel
<alex.b...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143301943.3...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> Greetings,
>
> There has been so much controversy over the past week regarding the
> recently passed Science Philosophy document (
> http://www.integrityinacademics.com ) in the Lancaster School District.
> I was invited by Marc to share my views here, and I thought it would be
> a great opportunity to share my thoughts.
>
> First, reading through the original thread on the decision in
> California I realize that there are so many people that have the wrong
> idea over what this decision means. I know that the media is describing
> it as anti-evolution (they've sensationalized the story) but this
> Science Philosophy document is not an attack on evolution, nor is it a
> "backdoor" for the creationists. It simply allows (even encourages) the
> teachers to have discussions about science in the classroom. Evolution
> is mentioned only once in the entire document, and even then it is only
> to point out that it should be taught as theory, not "unalterable
> fact." I'm sure we all agree that makes sense.
Actually, the very statement indicates a poor grasp of the process by which
science establishes fact.
Gravity is a fact and a theory. Evolution is a fact and a theory. Atoms are
a fact and a theory. Though all scientific assertions are considered
tentative and subject to revision in the light of new information, do you
understand that the Theory of Evolution is as well established as the Theory
of Gravity?
And honestly tell us why you singled out evolution. The various theories of
gravity are currently subject to substantial scientific revision.
--
Zachriel
"Evolution is .... The Theory of Evolution explains ...."
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/evolution-defined.html
R. Baldwin
Sir, it is the one mention of evolution in the Lancaster policy that places
your motives firmly in the creationist camp. Specifically, the sentence
reads "Evolution, then, should be taught as theory, as opposed to
unalterable fact." By singling out evolution among all other scientific
theories, when evolution is one of the best established scientific theories
and only controversial in the social realm, you are clearly making a
pro-creationist statement with this policy. There would be absolutely no
doubt in the mind of any member of the public what you mean by the
statement.
The statement is made worse by the phrase "as opposed to unalterable fact."
As the Lancaster policy notes in the previous sentence, science doesn't
commit itself to facts any more than theories, and it doesn't consider facts
unalterable, because observations are subject to error and imprecision.
There are evolution facts, which the policy fails to note; and none of them
are considered unalterable, yet the policy suggests they are.
If you had included the statement "Gravity, then, should be taught as
theory, as opposed to unalterable fact," it would be just as correct but
seem ludicrous. The statement about evolution is just as ludicrous in the
context of science.
If the evolution sentence were struck so that the paragraph read:
"Students should learn that science never commits itself to any fact,
hypothesis, or theory, no matter how firmly it appears to be established.
Discussions that question a theory may be appropriate as long as they do not
stray from the current criteria of scientific fact, hypothesis, and theory."
It would be correct, though it could be better worded.
The final sentence of the paragraph should not be coupled to this question.
To connect "Science instruction must respect the private beliefs of
students, but discussion in this regard should not be part of the science
curriculum" with a statement urging the questioning of evolution comes
across as a veiled threat from the school board to the science teachers that
they better dance gently around evolution rather than teach it.
As to academic excellence, any policy putting forth that textbooks are the
major source of a K-12 science curriculum is hardly promoting excellence.
Science textbooks do not remain current, and school districts cannot afford
to keep buying current textbooks. The AAAS Project 2061 Study, the Third
International Mathematics and Science Study, and an AIBS study all found
that available U.S. science textbooks are inadequate. They do not support
national or state science standards and benchmarks, are too broad, too
shallow. and contain too many factual errors.
So your motives have been questioned because they are indeed questionable.
But thank you for at least having the courage to post here.
noctiluca
alex.b...@gmail.com wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> There has been so much controversy over the past week regarding the
> recently passed Science Philosophy document (
> http://www.integrityinacademics.com ) in the Lancaster School District.
> I was invited by Marc to share my views here, and I thought it would be
> a great opportunity to share my thoughts.
>
> First, reading through the original thread on the decision in
> California I realize that there are so many people that have the wrong
> idea over what this decision means. I know that the media is describing
> it as anti-evolution (they've sensationalized the story) but this
> Science Philosophy document is not an attack on evolution, nor is it a
> "backdoor" for the creationists. It simply allows (even encourages) the
> teachers to have discussions about science in the classroom. Evolution
> is mentioned only once in the entire document, and even then it is only
> to point out that it should be taught as theory, not "unalterable
> fact." I'm sure we all agree that makes sense.
>
> Second, my motives have been questioned.
The evidence would indicate that your motives are questionable. You
could help to dispel that notion by responding in this thread to some
of the queries put forth.
Robert
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Ooh, here's a nice giveaway. On the web site there is a teacher's
> petition, and here is the full text:
>
> " I support broadening the scientific education of our students to
> include scientific evidence that poses challenges to Darwin's
> evolutionary theory."
If this is what he really means there is nothing wrong with it. But I
suspect he has a hidden wedge shaped agenda.
For example there are coherent theories that challenge the hypothesis
that natural selection is the sole or main processes of evolutionary
change. Genetic drift figures in and there is the matter of punctuated
equilibrium which challenges Darwinian gradualism. You will notice that
the alternative hypotheses are naturalistic and do not try to sneak in a
goddidit.
Bob Kolker
alex.b...@gmail.com
the only scientific theory that people talk about, arguably the only
one laymen care about.
Integrity in Academics is not putting forth any new lesson plans or
even a change in curriculum, the new Science Philosophy is a
recommendation for science teachers to abide by.
neverbetter wrote: "I don't see how it's going to make them more
interested in science and improve their scores if you simply tell them
that you think that the theory of evolution is bogus."
When did I say or imply that the theory of evolution is bogus?
John Harshman writes: "Anyway, how is any policy that is explicitly and
strictly about evolution going to significantly help science test
scores?"
This policy does _not_ explicitly address evolution! We are trying to
get students interested in and intrigued by science, this philosophy is
the best way we know how. Do you have any other ideas, maybe we can
work together?
Robert J. Kolker
Maybe and maybe not. Remember biological theories are much more diffuse
(by their nature) than theories of fundemental physical interactions and
objects. Evolution is the key to biological theories, so singling out
evolution need not imply some sly motivation. If I wanted to challange
modern biology the theory of evolution is a place where I would make the
challange. It is not a slam dunk that orthodox Darwinian theory is
completely right. What about punctuated equilibrium. What does this to
to the hypothesis of gradualism? What about mutation and genetic drift
without a selective advantage? What about variation in how regulative
genes work, without changing the genetic structure? There are many
legitimate areas of contention within the scope of evolution theory.
Bob Kolker
Ron O
alex.brann...@gmail.com wrote:
> Many of you ask why single out evolution? The answer is simple: it is
> the only scientific theory that people talk about, arguably the only
> one laymen care about.
>
> Integrity in Academics is not putting forth any new lesson plans or
> even a change in curriculum, the new Science Philosophy is a
> recommendation for science teachers to abide by.
This is a dishonest cop out and you know it. Without guidelines what
do you expect the teachers to discuss? If you can't present an honest
lesson plan on this issue, why would you expect a teacher to be able to
come up with one?
Present your lesson plan on the subject. Let's see what you consider
to be an honest lesson that teaches what you want taught. Why do I
believe that you can't or won't do that?
>
> neverbetter wrote: "I don't see how it's going to make them more
> interested in science and improve their scores if you simply tell them
> that you think that the theory of evolution is bogus."
> When did I say or imply that the theory of evolution is bogus?
>
> John Harshman writes: "Anyway, how is any policy that is explicitly and
> strictly about evolution going to significantly help science test
> scores?"
> This policy does _not_ explicitly address evolution! We are trying to
> get students interested in and intrigued by science, this philosophy is
> the best way we know how. Do you have any other ideas, maybe we can
> work together?
Your web page tells everyone that this isn't an honest response. How
did you con the board into pushing the statement when you claim that it
isn't what your web page claims that the issue is about? All anyone
has to do is go to your web page and see that someone isn't being
straight about their motives and that someone would be you because you
wrote the web site and you conned the board.
Present an honest lesson plan on the subject. A "guide" isn't any good
if you expect dishonesty, ignorance, and incompetence to accomplish
your goals. If you think that a teacher can teach this subject the way
you want it taught competently and honestly, prove it. Present the
evolution lesson plan and tell us how you are going to educate the
students about the issue. It should be simple, right? Any teacher
should be able to use your guide and do it, so do it or admit that you
can't.
Ron Okimoto
neverbetter
alex.brann...@gmail.com wrote:
> Many of you ask why single out evolution? The answer is simple: it is
> the only scientific theory that people talk about, arguably the only
> one laymen care about.
IOW, the evolution theory doesn't please certain religious groups.
> Integrity in Academics is not putting forth any new lesson plans or
> even a change in curriculum, the new Science Philosophy is a
> recommendation for science teachers to abide by.
>
> neverbetter wrote: "I don't see how it's going to make them more
> interested in science and improve their scores if you simply tell them
> that you think that the theory of evolution is bogus."
> When did I say or imply that the theory of evolution is bogus?
When you singled it out among all the other scientific theories and
said that it's just a theory. See for example the thread Judge Jones /
new icon of science!
and especially Sverker Johansson's posts.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/bc4b6a53c5e4b354/2cca2c4cb3379e5f#2cca2c4cb3379e5f
> John Harshman writes: "Anyway, how is any policy that is explicitly and
> strictly about evolution going to significantly help science test
> scores?"
> This policy does _not_ explicitly address evolution!
Why does it single it out then?
>We are trying to
> get students interested in and intrigued by science, this philosophy is
> the best way we know how. Do you have any other ideas, maybe we can
> work together?
How about extra resources to improve the conditions in which teaching
occurs? Instructive fieldtrips? Seminars and brainstorming groups for
the science teachers on how to improve their methods and motivate the
students? Attempting to encourage the parents to value their children's
science education more and motivate them at home? This last bit might
be too much to ask if the majority of the voters in your community are
in favour of creationism.
Lee Oswald Ving
@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
> Greetings,
>
> There has been so much controversy over the past week regarding the
> recently passed Science Philosophy document (
> http://www.integrityinacademics.com ) in the Lancaster School District.
> I was invited by Marc to share my views here, and I thought it would be
> a great opportunity to share my thoughts.
>
> First, reading through the original thread on the decision in
> California I realize that there are so many people that have the wrong
> idea over what this decision means. I know that the media is describing
> it as anti-evolution (they've sensationalized the story) but this
> Science Philosophy document is not an attack on evolution, nor is it a
> "backdoor" for the creationists. It simply allows (even encourages) the
> teachers to have discussions about science in the classroom. Evolution
> is mentioned only once in the entire document, and even then it is only
> to point out that it should be taught as theory, not "unalterable
> fact." I'm sure we all agree that makes sense.
That depends on whether you have a sensible explanation of why Biological
Evolutionary Theory was singled out.
In fact, the sincerity of your protestations that you have no Creationist
agenda depends on it.
<snip>
> I appreciate the invitation to share my side of the story.
This would be a great time to start doing so.
Leonard Evens
> Many of you ask why single out evolution? The answer is simple: it is
> the only scientific theory that people talk about, arguably the only
> one laymen care about.
Doesn't that depend quite a lot on which lay people you talk to? I
don't know many people who talk more about evolution than they talk
about other areas of biology or other scientific fields. There is lots
of interest in molecular biology and its relation to medical science. A
lot of people are interested in climate science. Also, consider the
popularity of programs like Cosmos which discuss cosmology and its
relation to modern physics.
So, the question is which people have you been talking to and how did
arrive at the misconception that evolution is the only scientific theory
that lay people care about?
> Integrity in Academics is not putting forth any new lesson plans or
> even a change in curriculum, the new Science Philosophy is a
> recommendation for science teachers to abide by.
>
> neverbetter wrote: "I don't see how it's going to make them more
> interested in science and improve their scores if you simply tell them
> that you think that the theory of evolution is bogus."
> When did I say or imply that the theory of evolution is bogus?
>
> John Harshman writes: "Anyway, how is any policy that is explicitly and
> strictly about evolution going to significantly help science test
> scores?"
> This policy does _not_ explicitly address evolution! We are trying to
> get students interested in and intrigued by science, this philosophy is
> the best way we know how. Do you have any other ideas, maybe we can
> work together?
My suggestion is that you leave it to established scientists to
determine science curriculums. That is hardly a perfect system but it
is better than any other. A good start would be to follow the
recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences. You should look up
what they have to say on the subject.
>
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> That depends on whether you have a sensible explanation of why Biological
> Evolutionary Theory was singled out.
Theory of Evolution is more accessible to people than highly
mathematical physical theories are. And evolution/genetics has a clear
relevence to public policy which string theory just does not have.
Can you see any but a specialist get his passions around over string
theory versus loop gravitation? I can't. But evolution/genetics has a
great deal to do with cloning (should we or shouldn't we), artificially
changing genotypes to get "superior" individuals etc etc. You can see
why biological quesitions will rise to the top of scales of importance.
Bob Kolker
John Harshman
Again, you're being dishonest. Of course it explicitly addresses
evolution. That's the only thing it explicitly addresses, and that's the
only stated purpose of your organization, the only subject of your
"teacher's petition", and the only subject discussed at all on your
organization's web site.
The fact that you find it necessary to dissimulate about your agenda
speaks volumes.
I suggest teaching real science and ignoring all this ID and creationist
nonsense. Or did you only have in mind that teachers should discuss
punctuated equilibria, neutral evolution, and species selection?
Time to get specific. What sort of changes in the way science is now
taught did you have in mind, exactly? What evidence against Darwin's
theory did you have in mind? The only thing your site mentions is the
Cambrian explosion. How is that in any way inconsistent with Darwin?
Have you been swallowing Jonathan Wells's lie about that? In fact the
Cambrian explosion is features in almost every general biology textbook
I have seen. It's already taught. Just not the way Wells and, perhaps,
you would like.
Robert J. Kolker
>>
>
> Again, you're being dishonest. Of course it explicitly addresses
> evolution. That's the only thing it explicitly addresses, and that's the
> only stated purpose of your organization, the only subject of your
> "teacher's petition", and the only subject discussed at all on your
> organization's web site.
That by itself is not enough to condemn. The question is how
evolutionary science is subject to criticism. I pointed out in another
post on this thread that there are many problematic issues (genuine
scientific issues) in the realm of evolution science. Such things should
be examined critically.
The importance of gentics and evolution to the general non specialist
public is not surprising. It impinges on such things as cloining,
genetic modification to overcome diseases, genetic modification to
produce a "better" human, culling of genetically diseased individuals by
either euthanasion or sterilization. Many questions impinging on public
policy are there to be discussed. So the importance of things bilogical
should not be surprising.
I would hold off judgement until we see what he is really proposing in
some detail.
Bob Kolker
Victor Eijkhout
> Many of you ask why single out evolution? The answer is simple: it is
> the only scientific theory that people talk about, arguably the only
> one laymen care about.
Reading slashdot (a computer site), I sometimes get the impression
rocketry is the only science people care about. No, evolution is the
only theory *you* care about. You don't care about science. If you cared
about science, why not advocate a critical look at the theory of
gravity? There are serious objections to that, and there are people who
actually have alternatives; google for MOND. You knew that, right? So
why don't you care about it? I thought you cared about science in
general?
Victor.
--
Victor Eijkhout -- eijkhout at tacc utexas edu
ph: 512 471 5809
alex.b...@gmail.com
discussed in one sentence, less than 3% of the document focuses on it.
My organization's goal is to, as you noted, partner with teachers to
improve the way evolution is taught. I'm sure you read our mission
statement which addresses our views on intelligent design and
creationism: we do not support the inclusion of either subject in the
science classroom.
As I have noted on this thread before, we are _not_ encouraging
teachers to change the way evolution is taught, we want them to discuss
some of the scientific differences that opponents of evolution have,
and we want them to get the students thinking so that the students can
start thinking for themselves.
We want science in science class. We want discussion in the science
class. We do NOT advocate alternatives to the origins or diversity of
life. We do NOT want to change the curriculum We do NOT want to water
down the teaching of evolution in the class. We want to initiate
discussions and encourage the scientists of tomorrow to start thinking
today.
TomS
<1143306872.4...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, alex.b...@gmail.com
stated..."
>
>Many of you ask why single out evolution? The answer is simple: it is
>the only scientific theory that people talk about, arguably the only
>one laymen care about.
That is what I have always suspected.
What has been called "pithecophobia" - the revulsion that some
people feel for being physically related to other creatures, most
especially those animals which are so clearly related. As John
Wesley wrote:
"Animals of the MONKEY class are furnished with hands instead of
paws; their ears, eyes, eye-lids, lips, and breasts, are like those
of mankind; their internal conformation also bears some distant
likeness; and the whole offers a picture that may mortify the pride
of such as make their persons the principal objects of their
admiration." (A Survey of the Wisdom of God in Creation, vol. 1
page 148, Third American Edition, 1823)
All of the lame arguments are really just trying to justify
this pithecophobia. ("Pithecophobia" seems to have been coined
by William K. Gregory, "Two Views of the Origin of Man", Science,
June 24, 1927.)
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so
much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. ... The evidences ... of
Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under
limitations..." John Stuart Mill, "Theism", Part II
Cheezits
[etc.]
> It simply allows (even encourages) the
> teachers to have discussions about science in the classroom.
Am I supposed to believe that without this decision, teacher are not
allowed to "have discussions about science"?
> Evolution
> is mentioned only once in the entire document, and even then it is
> only to point out that it should be taught as theory, not "unalterable
> fact."
[etc.]
I don't know of anything in science that is taught as "unalterable
fact". The only thing I know of that is taught that way is religious
dogma.
What are your qualifications, and how do they enable you to tell science
teachers how they should teach?
Sue
--
Full bibliographic references to the peer-reviewed
scientific literature, please. - Herb Huston
John Harshman
> John, in a 408-word philosophy statement, the theory of evolution is
> discussed in one sentence, less than 3% of the document focuses on it.
But that's the whole point of the document, isn't it? Again, your need
not to come clean about your purpose speaks volumes.
> My organization's goal is to, as you noted, partner with teachers to
> improve the way evolution is taught. I'm sure you read our mission
> statement which addresses our views on intelligent design and
> creationism: we do not support the inclusion of either subject in the
> science classroom.
Sure. That's a necessary legal fig leaf.
> As I have noted on this thread before, we are _not_ encouraging
> teachers to change the way evolution is taught, we want them to discuss
> some of the scientific differences that opponents of evolution have,
> and we want them to get the students thinking so that the students can
> start thinking for themselves.
What scientific differences do opponents of evolution have? Which
opponents were you thinking of? I don't know of anything scientific in
anyone's opposition to evolution, nor of any opponent of evolution who
is not religiously motivated. If you disagree, give me some specifics.
> We want science in science class. We want discussion in the science
> class. We do NOT advocate alternatives to the origins or diversity of
> life. We do NOT want to change the curriculum We do NOT want to water
> down the teaching of evolution in the class. We want to initiate
> discussions and encourage the scientists of tomorrow to start thinking
> today.
Why is thinking limited to thinking about the arguments of
anti-evolutionists? Why not discuss real questions within evolutionary
biology? And why, if the goal is to improve science education in
general, is evolution the only subject mentioned?
Ernest Major
alex.b...@gmail.com writes
Quoting has been fixed.
>Many of you ask why single out evolution? The answer is simple: it is
>the only scientific theory that people talk about, arguably the only
>one laymen care about.
That isn't the case. Climate change due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas
emissions is also another scientific topic that is associated with an
unwarranted public controversy.
>
>Integrity in Academics is not putting forth any new lesson plans or
>even a change in curriculum, the new Science Philosophy is a
>recommendation for science teachers to abide by.
You could have picked a better name - it makes you sound like Honest
Joe, Used Car Salesman. It's not even as if it's an appropriate name for
an organisation allegedly dedicated to improving science education -
that would be a matter of practice, not integrity.
>
>neverbetter wrote:
>>"I don't see how it's going to make them more
>>interested in science and improve their scores if you simply tell them
>>that you think that the theory of evolution is bogus."
>When did I say or imply that the theory of evolution is bogus?
From your web site -
"Alex Branning founded the Integrity in Academics group after doing
extensive research on the evidence for evolution. Alex assembled a team
comprised of law attorneys, a constitutional lawyer, scientists and
teachers. "
Also from your web site -
"I support broadening the scientific education of our students to
include scientific evidence that poses challenges to Darwin's
evolutionary theory. "
From the Lancaster School District "Science Philosophy" statement -
"Discussions that question the theory may be appropriate as long as
they do not stray from the current criteria of scientific fact,
hypothesis, and theory."
>
>>John Harshman writes: "Anyway, how is any policy that is explicitly
>>and strictly about evolution going to significantly help science test
>>scores?"
>This policy does _not_ explicitly address evolution! We are trying to
>get students interested in and intrigued by science, this philosophy is
>the best way we know how. Do you have any other ideas, maybe we can
>work together?
>
To get students interested in and intrigued by science requires more
than a nebulous policy singling out, for no good reason, evolution for
special treatment.
You could get the students to do original research in evolution. There's
a number of taxonomically difficult genera in the Californian flora
which could do with further examination. Apart from the health hazards
of the irritant hairs, which might be a problem in these litigious days,
the geographic variation, and the degree of interfertility between
populations, of Fremontodendron could be studied. Then the possible
existence of cryptic species in Sidalcea could be studied.
--
alias Ernest Major
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.1/292 - Release Date: 24/03/2006
Ron O
alex.b...@gmail.com wrote:
> John, in a 408-word philosophy statement, the theory of evolution is
> discussed in one sentence, less than 3% of the document focuses on it.
>
> My organization's goal is to, as you noted, partner with teachers to
> improve the way evolution is taught. I'm sure you read our mission
> statement which addresses our views on intelligent design and
> creationism: we do not support the inclusion of either subject in the
> science classroom.
>
> As I have noted on this thread before, we are _not_ encouraging
> teachers to change the way evolution is taught, we want them to discuss
> some of the scientific differences that opponents of evolution have,
> and we want them to get the students thinking so that the students can
> start thinking for themselves.
This is just scam speak.
Produce the lesson plan to demonstrate that a teacher can do what you
want done in an honest and competent manner.
Why do you think that not a single creationist organization has such a
lesson plan ready for the public school system?
Really, just demonstrate that you can do what you claim to want to do.
If you aren't scamming you should be able to do exactly what is being
asked. Produce the honest lesson plan. Let everyone see how you think
that you can cover the issue.
Ron Okimoto
>
> We want science in science class. We want discussion in the science
> class. We do NOT advocate alternatives to the origins or diversity of
> life. We do NOT want to change the curriculum We do NOT want to water
> down the teaching of evolution in the class. We want to initiate
> discussions and encourage the scientists of tomorrow to start thinking
> today.
Sure and there is a bridge in New York that is for sale cheap and you
can get in on the ground floor.... You should be able to demonstrate
this, but why can't you? Why does your own web site mark you as not
being honest about this? Are you proud of scamming the school board?
Don't you think that you should tell them that you really have no idea
about what you are doing? Where are the teachers going to get their
guidance on what they can teach on this subject? If you don't know,
why and how did you scam the board into doing this?
Ron Okimoto
Victor Eijkhout
> John, in a 408-word philosophy statement, the theory of evolution is
> discussed in one sentence, less than 3% of the document focuses on it.
Ok.
> My organization's goal is to, as you noted, partner with teachers to
> improve the way evolution is taught.
Wow! How do you switch sides of your mouth that fast?
Victor "leaving it to other people to ask, yet again, what your problems
with evolution are, what these purported scientific differences are, and
what you propose those teachers
teach/discuss/whatever-verb-you-prefer-but-will-you-finally-give-some-de
tails?"
Cheezits
[etc/\
> Also from your web site -
>
> "I support broadening the scientific education of our students to
> include scientific evidence that poses challenges to Darwin's
> evolutionary theory. "
I'd support it too, if I knew what the hell that evidence was (assuming
it wasn't the bogus arguments I've seen so far).
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
Ernest Major
<Cheez...@hotmail.com> writes
>Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>[etc/\
>> Also from your web site -
>>
>> "I support broadening the scientific education of our students to
>> include scientific evidence that poses challenges to Darwin's
>> evolutionary theory. "
>[etc.]
>
>I'd support it too, if I knew what the hell that evidence was (assuming
>it wasn't the bogus arguments I've seen so far).
>
>Sue
I should point out that the current evolutionary theory is not Darwin's.
Darwin was remarkably right considering what he had to work with, but
biology has moved on the last 150 years.
Mark VandeWettering
> Greetings,
>
> There has been so much controversy over the past week regarding the
> recently passed Science Philosophy document (
> http://www.integrityinacademics.com ) in the Lancaster School District.
> I was invited by Marc to share my views here, and I thought it would be
> a great opportunity to share my thoughts.
>
> First, reading through the original thread on the decision in
> California I realize that there are so many people that have the wrong
> idea over what this decision means. I know that the media is describing
> it as anti-evolution (they've sensationalized the story) but this
> Science Philosophy document is not an attack on evolution, nor is it a
> teachers to have discussions about science in the classroom. Evolution
> is mentioned only once in the entire document, and even then it is only
> to point out that it should be taught as theory, not "unalterable
>
> and fear-mongering of the NCSE and other organizations, it is an
> automatic response to put anyone who even resembles an
> anti-evolutionist in the "creationism" camp - and then to immediately
> assume that I want to bring the Bible into the science class. These
> things couldn't be further from the truth. The motives behind this move
> are the sinking test scores - students don't care about science and
> they are failing the class miserably. While my idea to promote
> discussion (and hopefully pique their curiosity at the same time) may
> be off the mark, we must do something!
>
I'm curious. The Lancaster School District Science Philosophy document
you linked only is mostly quite reasonable, and I suspect would provoke
little dissent. The only mention of evolution of course occurs in this
paragraph:
Students should learn that science never commits itself
irrevocably to any act, hypothesis, or theory, no matter how
firmly it appears to be established. Evolution, then, should be
taught as theory, as opposed to unalterable fact. Discussions
that question the theory may be appropriate as long as they
do not stray from the current criteria of scientific fact,
hypothesis and theory. Science instruction must respect the
private beliefs of students, but discussion in this regard
should not be part of the science curriculum.
(Any typos are mine).
Compare this to your charter:
We are a group of concerned citizens attempting to partner with
teachers, administrators and school boards to improve the way
evolution is taught in the local schools.
Do you think this statement of philosophy acheieves the goal of
improving evolution in education? Other than the three word summary
"don't be dogmatic" do you have any other ideas you'd like to share with
science educators about how they should improve science education?
How about some textbook recommendations? Materials that you'd like to see
included in school curriculum? Additions to standards to help assure
that graduating students possess the necessary mastery of the material?
It is also slightly disingenuous to pretend that promoters of
anti-evolutionary ideas are not religiously motivated. While the Dover
School Board tried to argue that their actions served some secular
purpose, the testimony in the case revealed that many of them lied to
the court and tried to portray events differently than they occurred:
that their motivation was religious and not designed to serve any secular
purpose such as improving science education.
So called "Intelligent Design" theorists have argued that their
motivations are purely scientific, but again, the Dover case is the
latest illustration that they are not. Their "star witness", Dr. Behe
was forced to admit that by his definition of science, astrology would
similarly have to be considered a science, as would, I suspect, teaching
epicycles as a theory of planetary motion. It's hard to imagine how
teaching nonsense improves science education.
As for fear mongering, school boards who adopt the idea that the public
schools are an appropriate place to try to win a culture war should heed
the words of Judge Jones in Kitzmiller:
Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the
product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as
this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case
came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed
faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest
law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who
in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and
ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity
of the Board.s decision is evident when considered against the
factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this
trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area
School District deserved better than to be dragged into this
legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and
personal resources.
Mark
Dr.GH
experience as a scientist, and only minor experience as a conservative
apologist.
Mr. Branning's program is quite obviously creationist, and his denials
are pure hypocrisy. When he writes "... students don't care about
science and they are failing the class miserably" he is expecting us to
believe that students will learn more if they are told that science is
bunk and rubbish.
I have over thirtyfive years of teaching experience from California
middle schools to universities. I have never had students who were
totally disengaged from learning science unless their parent's
religious fanaticism had poisoned their minds years before they ever
entered my classroom. Mr. Branning, like the rest of his ilk, is not
content with merely the victims of parental intellectual abuse, but
would like to inflict this on all students.
We in America are faced with a critial choice with profound consequence
to our national security- will we allow these so-called conservatives
to dammage if not destroy the American scientific advantage along with
the tradition of separation of church and state?
Gary Hurd
Mark VandeWettering
> the only scientific theory that people talk about, arguably the only
> one laymen care about.
I suspect what you mean is that evolution is the only theory that certain
literal minded Christians find in opposition to their religious beliefs,
at least for today.
> Integrity in Academics is not putting forth any new lesson plans or
> even a change in curriculum, the new Science Philosophy is a
> recommendation for science teachers to abide by.
Without specific recommendations, lesson plans, materials, and standards,
how can you possibly keep a straight face when you claim that your goal
is to improve the state of education?
> neverbetter wrote: "I don't see how it's going to make them more
> interested in science and improve their scores if you simply tell them
> that you think that the theory of evolution is bogus."
> When did I say or imply that the theory of evolution is bogus?
>
> John Harshman writes: "Anyway, how is any policy that is explicitly and
> strictly about evolution going to significantly help science test
> scores?"
>
> This policy does _not_ explicitly address evolution!
Yes, it does. It specifically mentions evolution, saying that it should
"not be taught as unalterable fact". That's actually all well and good,
but science shouldn't teach gravitation or quantum theory as unalterable
fact either. Science realizes that future observations can change our
perceptions of the universe, and we have to accept these changes as they
are observed. Your specific and (despite your protestations) explicit
mention of evolution makes it seem that you've got some special axe to
grind with respect to evolution.
Which, of course, we all suspect you do.
> We are trying to get students interested in and intrigued by science,
> this philosophy is the best way we know how. Do you have any other
> ideas, maybe we can work together?
I'm sorry, but if you think you are trying to get students interested in
science, you are absolutely kidding yourself. Want to get students
involved in science? Here are some ideas that actually make a difference.
1. Fund your public schools.
2. Hire better teachers. Encourage them to continue their own science
education so they can pass their knowledge on to their students.
3. Review textbooks for factual errors and overall quality. Buy good materials
that encourage critical thinking and knowledge of the scientific method.
4. Develop lesson plans that are engaging, that require individual
participation and hands on activities.
5. Set standards for graduating students so that you can honestly decide if
the students have mastered the necessary material.
6. Show some enthusiasm for science! Science is responsible for the quality
of life that humans enjoy. Revel in it! Show how it is relevent to the
everyday lives of people everywhere.
Mark
Stuart
alex.b...@gmail.com wrote:
> John, in a 408-word philosophy statement, the theory of evolution is
> discussed in one sentence, less than 3% of the document focuses on it.
When they say its not about the evolution, its about the evolution.
>
> My organization's goal is to, as you noted, partner with teachers to
> improve the way evolution is taught. I'm sure you read our mission
> statement which addresses our views on intelligent design and
> creationism: we do not support the inclusion of either subject in the
> science classroom.
>
> As I have noted on this thread before, we are _not_ encouraging
> teachers to change the way evolution is taught, we want them to discuss
> some of the scientific differences that opponents of evolution have,
> and we want them to get the students thinking so that the students can
> start thinking for themselves.
That seems to contradict your previous statement. First you assume
evolutions opponents have a genuine "scientific" difference. Above yo
say you don't support inclusion of these subjects in the classroom, now
you say you want there alledeged scientific differences discussed.
Hilarious. This is nothing more than the DI's "teach the controversy".
The problem here, is that the controversy is manufactured.
I hope you enjoy the public wedgie the school board will get from the
ACLU.
There are a number of interesting debates within evolutionary theory
gradualists vs punctualists
neutralist vs. selectionist
etc.
Why not teach those? Why not teach honest scientfiic debates?
Evolutions opponents neither offer an alternative scientific theory nor
are they honest.
>
> We want science in science class. We want discussion in the science
> class. We do NOT advocate alternatives to the origins or diversity of
> life. We do NOT want to change the curriculum We do NOT want to water
> down the teaching of evolution in the class. We want to initiate
> discussions and encourage the scientists of tomorrow to start thinking
> today.
You don't do that by wasting time on non-scientific issues. The only
alternative to evolution is ignorance.
Still waiting for your lesson plan.
Stuart
Mark VandeWettering
> discussed in one sentence, less than 3% of the document focuses on it.
>
> My organization's goal is to, as you noted, partner with teachers to
> improve the way evolution is taught.
Don't you think that these two statements of fact indicate contrary
goals? If, as you say, your organizations goal is to improve evolution
education, that it merits more than 3% of your statement of philosophy?
We are all curious: just what specific changes do you think would improve
education about evolution? If you can't suggest any specific changes,
how can you be assured that your philosophy documents actually serves to
improve evolution education?
> I'm sure you read our mission statement which addresses our views on
> intelligent design and creationism: we do not support the inclusion of
> either subject in the science classroom.
So you say. But what we are really interested is what you *are* interested
in teaching in science classes.
> As I have noted on this thread before, we are _not_ encouraging
> teachers to change the way evolution is taught, we want them to discuss
> some of the scientific differences that opponents of evolution have,
> and we want them to get the students thinking so that the students can
> start thinking for themselves.
What are these scientific differences? If teachers are to be prepared
for the kinds of questions that students might ask, I think it's fair that
we ask that you resent a list of these and what you think the reasonable
responses to these questions might be.
> We want science in science class. We want discussion in the science
> class. We do NOT advocate alternatives to the origins or diversity of
> life. We do NOT want to change the curriculum We do NOT want to water
> down the teaching of evolution in the class. We want to initiate
> discussions and encourage the scientists of tomorrow to start thinking
> today.
I think you are disingenous.
Mark
Deadrat
Mr. Branning,
Please forgive me. I don't believe a word you're saying. But this just may
be because I'm a nasty and cynical bastard. Might I ask you to avail yourself
of this opportunity to prove me wrong. I have a few questions about your
website, answers to which would be very helpful.
1. You say that you founded Integrity in Academics "after doing extensive
research on the evidence for evolution." Please list the academic credentials
you obtained and the research positions you held. What is your field of specialty
in biology, and where have you published your results? Please supply a summary
of the results of your research.
2. You say that you have "assembled a team comprised of law attorneys" and others
including scientists and teachers. You mean, of course, a team "composed of" or
"comprising." What are "law attorneys" and how do they differ from attorneys at law?
Please list the members of your team. For the teachers, please list their credentials and
positions. For each scientist, please supply a c.v.
3. Your teacher petition and your mission statement support teaching "scientific evidence
that poses challenges to Darwin's evolutionary theory." Please distinguish between
Darwinian theory and modern biology. Much has been discovered since Darwin
first published The Origin of Species. Please list some of the evidence that you feel poses
challenges to the theory of evolution.
4. Please explain the purpose of "targeted policies" for different school boards. Why
should your policies vary by school board? Why does your "list" consist of Lancaster only?
5. Sections 7 and 8 of the Biology/Life Sciences part of the California Science Content
Standards discuss evolution. How does your statement of "Science Philosophy" comport
with these standards? It is impossible to tell whether your philosophy complements or
contradicts state standards. Some of the statements in your philosophy are simple
declarations ("The domain of the natural sciences is the natural world.") Which of these
fail to characterize the teaching of science in Lancaster? Some of the statements are
imperatives ("... students do not have to accept everything that is taught ....") Which of
these does Lancaster fail to follow? Some of these are passive constructions ("Science is
presented with its applications in technology ....") Who is the actor for these? Lancaster?
Or did you mean to use the infinitive? ("Science is *to be* presented with its applications in
technology.") If so, please cite the occasions in which Lancaster has failed to abide by these
strictures.
6. In spite of all the words dedicated to policy and philosophy, you provide not a single
specific instruction for Lancaster. Do you have a lesson plan? a testing program? a
recommended bibliography? How should teachers in a Lancaster District school change their
teaching to comply with your policies?
7. In spite of the number of times the word "science" appears in your statements of policy and
philosophy, the only field of science you mention is evolution. Why is that? Are any other
areas
of science affected by your program, say, geology or cosmology?
8. On your web site, you ask for donations to support your work. Please detail the sources of
your financial support. I understand that you may not wish to disclose the names of
individuals,
but at least give the breakdown of individual, corporate, and institutional contributions.
If you feel that any of these questions are inappropriate, please let me know your reasons.
Thanks you for your attention to my request.
Deadrat
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> I should point out that the current evolutionary theory is not Darwin's.
> Darwin was remarkably right considering what he had to work with, but
> biology has moved on the last 150 years.
I think the theory of evolution as it is now is definitely
post-Darwinian. Natural selection still has a prominent place in the
theory but the machinery of inheritance and the way genes operate is the
major part of the theory now. This is something that Darwin never had.
Bob Kolker
alex.b...@gmail.com
I've already supplied answers to.
1) No, we do not have a new lesson plan for the class - we'll let the
teachers decide how best to educate their students.
2) I have never pretended to be a scientist or teacher - I am a
concerned citizen trying to do something good for our students.
3) Please do not attempt to tie me in with Dover or any other
organization. Integrity in Academics is not a creationist organization
in disguise, we are a group that is attempting to do something for our
students, to raise the dismal test scores and get people interested in
science again.
We are a young organization (as noted in the Valley Press article) and
we have only just begun our journey. The Science Philosophy document
was written by local educators, approved *unanimously* by the local
science teachers and has not received one complaint from any local
citizens.
Ron O
SNIP:
I don't care about their credentials or their CVs. All these guys on
his team and no one ever came up with a lesson plan that proved that
they could teach what they claim can be taught? What kind of education
team was that? It sounds about as educational as the clown scam
artists at the Discovery Institute. They never came up with their
lesson plan for what they claimed to be able to teach. They never put
up an ID lesson plan, and they just let the rubes take the heat and
screw up the "teach the controversy" lesson plan. It was embarassing
when the Ohio rubes took the "no moths on tree trunks" lie right out of
one of the Discovery Institute's fellows books and used it in the Ohio
model lesson plan. There is a reason why places like the Discovery
Institute don't put up lesson plans. This guy already knew why or is
just finding out why, now.
Ron Okimoto
neverbetter
It's still not clear to me why you think that the dismal test scores of
your students would be improved if the teachers remember to mention
that evolution is just a theory and not a fact. If your goal really is
better learning, programs focused on improving the quality of teaching
and motivating the students seem likely to be more useful than this
approach. What other kinds of action has the school board planned?
Ron O
alex.b...@gmail.com wrote:
> So many of the responses to my posts are asking the same questions that
> I've already supplied answers to.
>
> 1) No, we do not have a new lesson plan for the class - we'll let the
> teachers decide how best to educate their students.
This is a dishonest cop out and you know it. If you can't come up with
an honest competent lesson plan how do you expect the teachers to come
up with one?
>
> 2) I have never pretended to be a scientist or teacher - I am a
> concerned citizen trying to do something good for our students.
Shouldn't you tell the board that you realize that you don't know what
you are talking about and if they don't want to look like fools and
repeat the Dover fiasco that they might want to reconsider their
actions and look deep into the reasons they took those actions in the
first place. You also have to consider that you will be a star witness
in any court case and that the smoking gun of your web site and your
involvement in getting the board to do what it did will look just as
slimy and dishonest as you look in this thread.
>
> 3) Please do not attempt to tie me in with Dover or any other
> organization. Integrity in Academics is not a creationist organization
> in disguise, we are a group that is attempting to do something for our
> students, to raise the dismal test scores and get people interested in
> science again.
Misnomers like Integrity of Academics are the meat of creationist
scams. Think of the Discovery Institute and how they blamed the rubes
in Dover. If the board members turn out to not have science education
as the primary reason for doing what they did, what will be the excuse
of Integrity of Academics?
>
> We are a young organization (as noted in the Valley Press article) and
> we have only just begun our journey. The Science Philosophy document
> was written by local educators, approved *unanimously* by the local
> science teachers and has not received one complaint from any local
> citizens.
Blame the victims. The Discovery Institute is good at that too.
So you don't have a lesson plan, and you aren't willing to stick your
neck out and try to produce an honest one. You sold the board on this
scam without having any evidence that this could be taught honestly and
competently, and you claim that it is the responsibility of others to
make sure that what you started works out. Have I missed any lame
excuses? Shouldn't you make these excuses to the board as soon as
possible, so they know how much they can depend on your support in
taking this issue to some reasonable conclusion?
Just take a step back and look at what you have claimed and the lame
excuses that you just made. What is wrong with your behavior? If you
were looking at what someone else wrote what would you think of that
person and what they had done?
Do you have any idea why a lot of people don't believe you are being
honest? Have you ever encountered an honest creationist organization?
If so, direct us to it. Have you ever tried to verify the junk that
you think you can teach? If so what did you find out?
Start a thread and ask creationists that post on this board if they
have ever been able to verify the junk they get from creationists
sources on this issue. Ask them to direct you to an honest souce of
information and how you can verify what the source is telling you.
Expect silence. What will that tell you?
Ron Okimoto
Ernest Major
>[etc/\
>> Also from your web site -
>>
>> "I support broadening the scientific education of our students to
>> include scientific evidence that poses challenges to Darwin's
>> evolutionary theory. "
>[etc.]
>
>I'd support it too, if I knew what the hell that evidence was (assuming
>it wasn't the bogus arguments I've seen so far).
>
>Sue
From his mission statment -
"The sole purpose of the organization is to broaden the scientific
education of our students to include scientific evidence that poses
challenges to Darwin's evolutionary theory, such as the Cambrian
Explosion, along with scientific evidence that supports Darwin's
theory.. "
Jon Fleming
<snip>
>
>Second, my motives have been questioned. Because of the scare tactics
>and fear-mongering of the NCSE and other organizations, it is an
>automatic response to put anyone who even resembles an
>anti-evolutionist in the "creationism" camp - and then to immediately
>assume that I want to bring the Bible into the science class. These
>things couldn't be further from the truth. The motives behind this move
>are the sinking test scores - students don't care about science and
>they are failing the class miserably. While my idea to promote
>discussion (and hopefully pique their curiosity at the same time) may
>be off the mark, we must do something!
Mr. Banning's motives have indeed been questioned, and with good
reason. He fails to mention that he_ is_ a creationist and owns the
domain evolutionisimpossible.com. From
<https://www.domaindirect.com/cgi-bin/whois_secure.cgi?domain=evolutionisimpossible.com&command=verify&mini=1>:
-------------------------------------
WhoIs (evolutionisimpossible.com)
[whois.opensrs.net]
Registrant:
Branning Group
private
private, CA 00000
US
Domain name: EVOLUTIONISIMPOSSIBLE.COM
Administrative Contact:
Branning, A al...@branninggroup.com
private
private, CA 00000
US
0000000000
Technical Contact:
Internet Services Inc., Parcom dnsa...@parcom.net
PO BOX 3198
Department: Domain Registrations
Renton, WA 98056-3198
US
206-686-4932 Fax: 425-204-7755
Registration Service Provider:
Parcom Internet Services Inc., sup...@parcom.net
000-000-0000
http://parcom.net
This company may be contacted for DNS/Nameserver changes, and general
domain support questions.
Registrar of Record: TUCOWS, INC.
Record last updated on 13-Nov-2005.
Record expires on 08-Feb-2007.
Record created on 08-Feb-2005.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS5.PARCOM.NET 69.90.236.105
NS6.PARCOM.NET 69.90.238.106
Domain status: REGISTRAR-LOCK
---------------------------------
Apparently he's smart enough to figure what a smoking gun that site
was, 'cause he's taken it down and there's nothing in the Internet
Archive. But Google still has at least part of it
cached(<http://www.google.com/search?as_q=&num=10&hs=3Du&hl=en&c2coff=1&client=opera&rls=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=evolutionisimpossible.com&as_rights=&safe=images>
or <http://tinyurl.com/ezkd3>), and those caches have been captured by
those who have a stake.
"How the Laws of Mathematics Disprove the Theory of Evolution":
<http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:BhSxgUZG-UIJ:www.evolutionisimpossible.com/math.html++site:evolutionisimpossible.com&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3&client=opera>
or <http://tinyurl.com/kjdxg>, including links to the ICR, AIG,
darwinismrefuted.com, and creationevolution.net.
"How the Laws of Chemistry Disprove the Theory of Evolution", by Harun
Yaha:
<http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:qkXP_yRnxbgJ:www.evolutionisimpossible.com/chemistry.html++site:evolutionisimpossible.com&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2&client=opera>
or <http://tinyurl.com/jd64q>.
Tip o' the hat to Ron Zeno of http://ronz.blogspot.com/, who posted
this information at Red State Rabble
(http://redstaterabble.blogspot.com/).
<snip>
--
jrf
replace nospam with group to email
noctiluca
alex.b...@gmail.com wrote:
> John, in a 408-word philosophy statement, the theory of evolution is
> discussed in one sentence, less than 3% of the document focuses on it.
>
> My organization's goal is to, as you noted, partner with teachers to
> improve the way evolution is taught. I'm sure you read our mission
> statement which addresses our views on intelligent design and
> creationism: we do not support the inclusion of either subject in the
> science classroom.
>
> As I have noted on this thread before, we are _not_ encouraging
> teachers to change the way evolution is taught, we want them to discuss
> some of the scientific differences that opponents of evolution have,
Here is the crux of the problem, and here is where you have to consider
your motivations in the face of facts.
Regardless of whatever theological influences have prompted your biased
approach toward evolution (evaluated in the light of your ignoring
other sciences), it is clear that you have done as many of your
colleagues have. You have created an elaborate mental architecture that
allows you to feel as if you're "just trying to help students learn"
and also allows you to feel persecuted when called to account for your
actions.
The problem is this architecture is built entirely upon the notion that
there are competing scientific theories or observations that evolution
unfairly ignores. Once this has been assumed it follows that biologists
must be opposing the teaching of those "facts." But biologists do *not*
oppose the teaching of biology. Biologists do *not* oppose the teaching
of scientific criticisms of evolution. Biologists do *not* oppose the
most intense empirical scrutiny of evolution you or anyone else can
muster.
What biologists *do* oppose is the interference in the field of
religiously motivated, (for the most part) non-biologists who owe
fealty to a proposition that is in conflict with science. Biologists
oppose people coming in and telling them they need to teach science
which differs from evolution because there is *no* science which
differs from the modern, foundational understanding of evolutionary
biology.
You have been told differently, but you have been lied to. Your
responsibility is to look past your underlying motivations (which you
appear intent upon concealing) and consider your responsiblity to all
of your students, not just those who share your theological
proclivities.
Robert
Mark VandeWettering
> I've already supplied answers to.
>
> 1) No, we do not have a new lesson plan for the class - we'll let the
> teachers decide how best to educate their students.
I cannot see how this notion is the best way to accomplish your stated
goals. After all, teachers are already able to decide how best to educate
their students. You seem to be asking that they do something else, but
are being very coy as to what that might be. Why is that?
> 2) I have never pretended to be a scientist or teacher - I am a
> concerned citizen trying to do something good for our students.
What is the source of this concern? If you aren't a scientist or a
teacher, what prompted you to create an organization whose purpose is to
improve teaching in evolution science? Surely you must have something
more specific in mind.
> 3) Please do not attempt to tie me in with Dover or any other
> organization. Integrity in Academics is not a creationist organization
> in disguise, we are a group that is attempting to do something for our
> students, to raise the dismal test scores and get people interested in
> science again.
I think the evidence to date suggests that you are lying, but we shall
see.
> We are a young organization (as noted in the Valley Press article) and
> we have only just begun our journey. The Science Philosophy document
> was written by local educators, approved *unanimously* by the local
> science teachers and has not received one complaint from any local
> citizens.
It is mostly not bad, I just question the motivation, and since it
can't possibly achieve any of the goals you say you are attempting to
achieve, I wonder what you've really got in mind.
Rest assured, we'll be watching.
Mark
Todd A. Farmerie
> As I have noted on this thread before, we are _not_ encouraging
> teachers to change the way evolution is taught, we want them to discuss
> some of the scientific differences that opponents of evolution have,
(Which would change the way evolution is taught, now, wouldn't it?)
Would this come before or after discussing the scientific differences
that the opponents of gravity have? Or of the germ theory of disease?
taf
Ron O
Jon Fleming wrote:
> On 25 Mar 2006 07:52:23 -0800, alex.b...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >
> >Second, my motives have been questioned. Because of the scare tactics
> >and fear-mongering of the NCSE and other organizations, it is an
> >automatic response to put anyone who even resembles an
> >anti-evolutionist in the "creationism" camp - and then to immediately
> >assume that I want to bring the Bible into the science class. These
> >things couldn't be further from the truth. The motives behind this move
> >are the sinking test scores - students don't care about science and
> >they are failing the class miserably. While my idea to promote
> >discussion (and hopefully pique their curiosity at the same time) may
> >be off the mark, we must do something!
>
> Mr. Banning's motives have indeed been questioned, and with good
> reason. He fails to mention that he_ is_ a creationist and owns the
> domain evolutionisimpossible.com. From
> <https://www.domaindirect.com/cgi-bin/whois_secure.cgi?domain=evolutionisimpossible.com&command=verify&mini=1>:
>
> -------------------------------------
>
>
> Apparently he's smart enough to figure what a smoking gun that site
> was, 'cause he's taken it down and there's nothing in the Internet
> Archive. But Google still has at least part of it
> cached(<http://www.google.com/search?as_q=&num=10&hs=3Du&hl=en&c2coff=1&client=opera&rls=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=evolutionisimpossible.com&as_rights=&safe=images>
> or <http://tinyurl.com/ezkd3>), and those caches have been captured by
> those who have a stake.
>
> "How the Laws of Mathematics Disprove the Theory of Evolution":
> <http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:BhSxgUZG-UIJ:www.evolutionisimpossible.com/math.html++site:evolutionisimpossible.com&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3&client=opera>
> or <http://tinyurl.com/kjdxg>, including links to the ICR, AIG,
> darwinismrefuted.com, and creationevolution.net.
>
> "How the Laws of Chemistry Disprove the Theory of Evolution", by Harun
> Yaha:
> <http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:qkXP_yRnxbgJ:www.evolutionisimpossible.com/chemistry.html++site:evolutionisimpossible.com&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2&client=opera>
> or <http://tinyurl.com/jd64q>.
>
> Tip o' the hat to Ron Zeno of http://ronz.blogspot.com/, who posted
> this information at Red State Rabble
> (http://redstaterabble.blogspot.com/).
>
> <snip>
>
> --
> jrf
> replace nospam with group to email
Harun Yahya as a science source. What a joke. Do you think that he
told the board that he was taken in by propaganda written by an Islamic
creationist crackpot?
Ron Okimoto
Mark VandeWettering
The Internet can be a harsh mistress. Or witness for the prosecution.
Alex, are you still here? Care to address how you aren't a creationist?
For shame.
Mark
Jon Fleming
>So many of the responses to my posts are asking the same questions that
>I've already supplied answers to.
>
>1) No, we do not have a new lesson plan for the class - we'll let the
>teachers decide how best to educate their students.
>
>2) I have never pretended to be a scientist or teacher - I am a
>concerned citizen trying to do something good for our students.
And you are a creationist, probably a YEC.
>
>3) Please do not attempt to tie me in with Dover or any other
>organization.
How about www.evolutionisimpossible.com? See
<http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/343ca950f13930e2?hl=en>.
>Integrity in Academics is not a creationist organization
>in disguise, we are a group that is attempting to do something for our
>students, to raise the dismal test scores and get people interested in
>science again.
Evolutionisimposible.com was a creationist organization in no disguise
at all ... and evolutionisimpossble.com was and is you.
>We are a young organization (as noted in the Valley Press article) and
>we have only just begun our journey.
Right. You had to dump the old organization because it was overtly
creationist, and had lots of links to YEC organizations.
> The Science Philosophy document
>was written by local educators, approved *unanimously* by the local
>science teachers and has not received one complaint from any local
>citizens.
Exactly which local educators wrote the document, and what are their
qualifications? Exactly what science teachers approved it? Exactly
what opportunities for complaint have been offered?
Stuart
alex.b...@gmail.com wrote:
> So many of the responses to my posts are asking the same questions that
> I've already supplied answers to.
>
> 1) No, we do not have a new lesson plan for the class - we'll let the
> teachers decide how best to educate their students.
>
> 2) I have never pretended to be a scientist or teacher - I am a
> concerned citizen trying to do something good for our students.
What you are is a creationist singling out evolution under the guise of
science.
As John found out, you are the owner of creationist website.
You are a dishonest twit, Mr. Branning, and I look forward to your
public wedgie in court.
Stuart
Stuart
Jon Fleming wrote:
> On 25 Mar 2006 07:52:23 -0800, alex.b...@gmail.com wrote:
> Mr. Banning's motives have indeed been questioned, and with good
> reason. He fails to mention that he_ is_ a creationist and owns the
> domain evolutionisimpossible.com. From
> <https://www.domaindirect.com/cgi-bin/whois_secure.cgi?domain=evolutionisimpossible.com&command=verify&mini=1>:
Good work, John
You should, if you can find the time, email your findings to the School
Board, and the local newspapers.
Time to shine the light on this cockroach.
I'd help, but I'm on my way to Brussels in a few hours.
Stuart
Stuart
And a holocaust deniar to boot.
Stuart
> Ron Okimoto
Deadrat
<alex.b...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143317380.4...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> So many of the responses to my posts are asking the same questions that
> I've already supplied answers to.
>
> 1) No, we do not have a new lesson plan for the class - we'll let the
> teachers decide how best to educate their students.
So you're withdrawing your program from Lancaster, I take it.
>
> 2) I have never pretended to be a scientist or teacher - I am a
> concerned citizen trying to do something good for our students.
You claimed on your website to have done extensive research on
evolution. Were you lying then or now?
> 3) Please do not attempt to tie me in with Dover or any other
> organization. Integrity in Academics is not a creationist organization
> in disguise,
But you are a creationist in disguise, aren't you? What does that
make Integrity in Academics?
> we are a group that is attempting to do something for our
> students, to raise the dismal test scores and get people interested in
> science again.
>
> We are a young organization (as noted in the Valley Press article) and
> we have only just begun our journey. The Science Philosophy document
> was written by local educators,
I will repeat my plea for a list of these local educators.
> approved *unanimously* by the local
> science teachers and has not received one complaint from any local
> citizens.
Science is not decided by popular vote.
Deadrat
Andrew McClure
> Many of you ask why single out evolution? The answer is simple: **it is
> the only scientific theory that people talk about, arguably the only
To the only extent to which this is true, it is true because of a
religious backlash against the theory of evolution. The theory of
evolution is currently in the public eye and dialogue in a way which
other scientific theories are not, because and only because of a
concerted public campaign by religious groups to object to evolution
and manufacture a sense of controversy surrounding the theory. You can
claim anything you like about your own motivations, but you cannot
possibly claim the current *media focus* on evolution is not inspired
by the actions of religious groups and still expect anyone to believe
you.
So how can you begin by asserting your policy is not trying to bring
religion into the classroom, and say that it is "scare tactics and
fear-mongering" to claim your policy has religious motivations; then in
the next breath admit, with your "the only one laymen care about"
comment, that your policy was shaped by a public response which was
religiously inspired?
Do laymen not talk, or care about stem cell research; or the theory of
global warming; or the scientific advances put forth by NASA on a
nearly daily basis; or the science which is currently leading to
advances in computer microchips, or internet technology, or
alternative-fuel automobiles, or the warfare technologies currently
being pioneered by the U.S. military? At different times in the last
ten years "laymen" have talked about and shown more interest in any or
all of these than the theory of evolution. In the last year the theory
of evolution is probably getting the most public attention out of any
of these-- but this attention is only inspired by a rash of media
attention *caused by school board policies which single out the theory
of evolution for attack*, so this hardly seems like a good
justification for exactly such a school board policy!
> [snip]
> This policy does _not_ explicitly address evolution!
It does not explicitly address it-- it only mentions it by name?
Consider the effect a sentence like "the policy does not explicitly
address evolution" might have on a reader of your posts, when anyone
can follow your links and see the policy addresses evolution by name,
and your press release justifying and explaining the policy references
darwinian evolution by name in nearly every second sentence. Do you
really not understand why, when they see you saying things like "the
policy does not explicitly address evolution", some people might have
legitimate cause for questioning your honesty, or motives about this
matter?
> We are trying to
> get students interested in and intrigued by science, this philosophy is
> the best way we know how. Do you have any other ideas, maybe we can
> work together?
If it is true that students are not currently interested and intrigued
by any aspect of science except the manufactured controversy
surrounding the theory of evolution, would not the best way to handle
this problem be to *seek out ways to get them interested*? Simply
assuming that this one item is all that students are interested in and
therefore it is the only item we need explicitly address, seems awfully
defeatist. It seems to reinforce the purported limited range of
interest in science rather than striving to expand that range.
If the honest intent was to identify subjects of interest to "layman"
students and concentrate on them in order to make science class
interesting, there are a great many valid science subjects which could
serve that exact purpose, and could have been referenced in your policy
instead of the evolution controversy-- some of which subjects (such as
recent advances in genetics, bioinformatics, and the study of natural
history) could potentially directly follow from the "hook" of the
recent popular attention given to the theory of evolution. If the
honest intent was to forment critical thinking among science students
while recognizing the existence of socially controversial sciences
(evolution is not the the only one), the policy could have sought ways
to encourage students to ask questions while equipping science teachers
with the capacity to accurately answer those questions students would
be likely to ask. Either of these things above would have the effect of
furthering science within science education. The policy does neither of
these things, and instead concentrates on the controversy about
evolution. The controversy about evolution, however, exists outside of
science-- it is a social phenomenon. Your policy, more clearly and
explicitly than it does anything else, encourages the presence of that
controversy in classrooms; which means the honest effect of your policy
is to take something which you might claim is not religion, but is
certainly not science, and drag it into the science classroom.
Meanwhile, under any obvious effect your policy would have on schools,
real and potentially interesting science continues to be ignored.
Deadrat
"Ron O" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1143317812....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Oh, but I do. I'm guessing this dream team is fictional. And that means the school
board failed to perform due diligence in finding out whose plans they've adopted.
I'd like to the board questioned on how they've discharged their responsibilities.
<snip>
Deadrat
> Ron Okimoto
>
Robert Grumbine
Message-ID: <1143301943.3...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
>It simply allows (even encourages) the
>teachers to have discussions about science in the classroom.
(referring to your science philosophy document).
Do teachers in California not have permission to talk about science
in the classroom? How odd that CA teachers need such a unique permission.
> Evolution
>is mentioned only once in the entire document, and even then it is only
>to point out that it should be taught as theory, not "unalterable
>fact." I'm sure we all agree that makes sense.
Read Kitzmiller v. Dover, and you'll see why singling out evolution
inspires the responses you object to. Not as a social principle, but
as legal principle.
>Second, my motives have been questioned.
Of course. Nothing special to you. When anyone with no professional
knowledge of either science or education starts talking about how science
should be taught, people will ask why they should listen to you, and
what prompts you to talk outside your professional competence.
>Because of the scare tactics
>and fear-mongering of the NCSE and other organizations, it is an
>automatic response to put anyone who even resembles an
>anti-evolutionist in the "creationism" camp - and then to immediately
>assume that I want to bring the Bible into the science class.
Since it turns out that you _are_ a creationist, it hardly seems
unreasonable to call you one. That you disingenuously try to
hide the fact is not to your credit.
Certainly it isn't 'scare tactics and fear-mongering' to call a
creationist a creationist, and, again, not to your credit to wave
loaded language at people who are being honest about it, unlike yourself.
>These things couldn't be further from the truth.
Hardly, you _are_ a creationist. Dead on the mark there.
Whether you want to bring the Bible in to science classes
remains to be seen. What also remains to be seen is what it
is you _do_ want to bring in to the class room.
You're leaving an awfully large blank space there. As given,
your statement accomplishes nothing whatever. Your stated goal
quoted at the top is already the case. Teachers can indeed
talk about science.
Since your stated goal is already met, we're going to look for
the other goals.
>The motives behind
>this move are the sinking test scores - students don't care about
>science and they are failing the class miserably. While my idea to
>promote discussion (and hopefully pique their curiosity at the same
>time) may be off the mark, we must do something!
How, concretely, does your idea 'promote discussion' -- beyond what
is already the case?
How, concretely, does your idea cause students to care about science?
How do you know that it's science?
How, concretely, does that discussion or caring address sinking test scores?
It's unfortunate that your fellow creationists have established such
an impeccable pedigree of lying and weaseling. One result is that
you're going to get very little slack for honest mistakes or bobbles.
But, given that reality forced on us by repeated experience (see, again,
Kitzmiller v. Dover), your assertion that scientists were involved is
not going to be taken on faith. Who, and what are their professional
fields?
In
Message-ID: <1143306872.4...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
>Many of you ask why single out evolution? The answer is simple: it is
>the only scientific theory that people talk about, arguably the only
>one laymen care about.
If by 'arguably' you mean 'this is not true', then yes.
Open any general circulation science magazine. These magazines
make their living by talking about theories (to whatever extent
they do talk about theories) that people care about -- enough to
put down money for the priviledge of reading about them. Evolution
is not the only theory present.
So, no, we're not going to buy your claim that this is the only
reason for singling out evolution. In doing so, we're giving you
the credit of considering you not to be appallingly ignorant of
what sciences are available, and what people care about.
True, though, that in crediting you with some knowledge, we're
conversely taking you as misrepresenting your purpose. Given
the many posts already, that seems accurate. Subject, of course,
to revision by future data.
We're asking for those data. The more data which come by outside
means, like looking up your history, rather than by your own statements,
the worse you look, and the closer to the liars cited in Kitzmiller
v. Dover.
In Message-ID: <qEfVf.4971$4L1...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>
John Harshman wrote:
>Again, you're being dishonest. Of course it explicitly addresses
>evolution. That's the only thing it explicitly addresses, and that's the
>only stated purpose of your organization, the only subject of your
>"teacher's petition", and the only subject discussed at all on your
>organization's web site.
>
>The fact that you find it necessary to dissimulate about your agenda
>speaks volumes.
You haven't responded to this substantively. Again, dodging the
substance of what you're trying to accomplish, and how it is that
what you're proposing will achieve those goals, is not going to
fly here -- and probably not in court either.
You've objected that you're not Dover, or like them. Fine. I'll
take that as a datum. The rest of the content of your posts are
also data, and don't give much support for you not being like
the Dover board. They, too, _said_ that they 'just wanted to improve
education'.
Don't make the mistake, however, of ignoring Kitzmiller v. Dover.
Though the precedent is not binding in CA, several strains of the
reasoning are certainly applicable. It was a revelation to me to
find that historical association and continuity, adoption of the
same behaviors, etc. actually _are_ considered legally relevant.
Your singling out of evolution is one of those matters mentioned.
So, yes, once you start the same series of actions, with same
language, you do get associated -- legally, not just humanly --
with those who went before. The Dover board preceding you on
the path you've displayed so far were liars, and were doing so
for their religion. You've already established a poor record for
honesty on your own, and are copying some of their same tactics.
Time for some substance:
What is it that you want taught, and/or how, that can't be or isn't
already taught? How do you know this is good for science education?
How are you keeping your religious -- creationist -- interests
out of the preceding?
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
CreateThis
> Science Philosophy document is not an attack on evolution
Liar.
> ... nor is it a "backdoor" for the creationists.
Liar.
> ... my motives have been questioned.
There's no question about it. We see people like you every day. Most
of them are better at this.
> ... fear-mongering of the NCSE and other organizations
Liar.
> ... it is an
> automatic response to put anyone who even resembles an
> anti-evolutionist in the "creationism" camp
Say you're not one. You give all the creationists who aren't liars a
bad name.
> ... that I want to bring the Bible into the science class. These
> things couldn't be further from the truth.
Liar. How do you expect to attract converts to your religion of lies?
How do you expect to go to heaven?
CT
CreateThis
> ... Integrity in Academics is not a creationist organization
> in disguise
Liar. It's not even a good disguise.
CT
Dr.GH
alex.b...@gmail.com
catchy) that questions the science behind evolution makes me a
creationist.
ErikW
What can he possibly say but 'doh'?
>
> For shame.
>
> Mark
neverbetter
All right, it must be so if you say so. Care to explain why you run a
creationist website if you in fact believe in evolution?
Ron O
Save it for court. Make sure that you push the board hard to maintain
their stand and you will likely get your chance to show everyone that
you are an honest and trustworthy person.
Ron Okimoto
Dr.GH
Gordon Hill
alex.b...@gmail.com wrote:
> John, in a 408-word philosophy statement, the theory of evolution is
> discussed in one sentence, less than 3% of the document focuses on it.
Interesting that the 408 word statement is posted on the web at
http://www.integrityinacademics.com/images/Lanc_Dist_Science_Philosoph.gif
as a gif file, not text. Why?
> My organization's goal is to, as you noted, partner with teachers to
> improve the way evolution is taught...
Which teachers feel evolution is being taught poorly today?
What is stopping them from teaching it better?
What would you change in the way it is taught?
Your 408 word statement says nothing about the problem or solution;
therefore, it must be a ploy.
> I'm sure you read our mission
> statement which addresses our views on intelligent design and
> creationism: we do not support the inclusion of either subject in the
> science classroom.
Yes I did at http://www.integrityinacademics.com/mission.html
It begins "The sole purpose of the organization is to broaden the
scientific education of our students to include scientific evidence
that poses challenges to Darwin's evolutionary theory, such as the
Cambrian Explosion, along with scientific evidence that supports
Darwin's theory."
If I read it correctly it says your sole objective is to "challenge
Darwin's evolutionary theory".
> As I have noted on this thread before, we are _not_ encouraging
> teachers to change the way evolution is taught...
...I'm afraid this is a misleading statement, your sole objective is to
challenge Darwin.
> we want them to discuss
> some of the scientific differences that opponents of evolution have...
...and who are they if they are not creationists and intelligent design
proponents? Who else is challenging Darwin that is not being taught in
the classroom today?
What scientific differences are there? Name the scientists. Offer the
opposing or differing theories. Otherwise you are misleading the
public.
> ...and we want them to get the students thinking so that the students can
> start thinking for themselves.
How much time have you spent in middle and high school science
classrooms? They think for themselves now and they have full access to
creationism and intelligent design, but not in science class. It's not
science.
Again... what scientific alternatives are there to evolution that are
not being taught in the school classroom?
> We want science in science class.
It's already there.
> We want discussion in the science class.
It's there now.
> We do NOT advocate alternatives to the origins or diversity of life.
Ahem... the theory of evolution does not address the origin of life,
only its evolving. If I was cynical I would suggest you tipped your
hand here. Okay I am cynical and believe you are a creationist
masquerading as a scientific theory diversifist.
The evidence for this is that you keep talking about scientific
theories other than Darwin, but never mention them, only to say you
don't want creationism or intelligent design taught in the classroom.
What are the contending theories?
> We do NOT want to change the curriculum...
Yes you do.
> We do NOT want to water
> down the teaching of evolution in the class. We want to initiate
> discussions and encourage the scientists of tomorrow to start thinking
> today.
About what? There is nothing stopping them!
I can not fathom how someone who seems to come forth on a noble mission
can so blatently misrepresent their motives, not be lying, but by
omitting the facts.
Who would want to trust any alteration in the science curriculuum to
someone who would hide facts?
For details of this apparent misdirection see
http://www.avpress.com/n/23/0323_s3.hts
These are interesting times.
All the best, GH
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
alex.b...@gmail.com wrote:
> Greetings,
<snip>
> Second, my motives have been questioned.
Au contraire, I don't think there is any question at all about your
motives.
I have only one question for you ---- what, exactly, ARE these
"criticisms" and "critiques" of evolution that you would like to see
taught. Please show us a few of them.
Do any of them differ in any way whatsoever from the same old crap that
ID/creationists have been pushing on us for forty years now -- the same
old crap that was already rejected by every Federal Court who has ever
heard it?
Show us your proposed lesson plan. Show us these proposed "criticisms"
and "critiques" of evolution.
I am curious about another thing, too ------- how exactly do you
propose to implement your policy regarding other sciences. What
"critiques" and "criticisms" of, say, germ theory do you propose be
taught? Heliocentrism? Plate tectonics?
Ah, but it's just "evolution" that gets your panties all in a knot,
isn't it. And it is, I suppose, just mere happenstance and coincidence
that your proposed policy parrots, precisely word for word, the new
strategy of the IDers who lost in Dover, your proposed "criticisms" and
"critiques" of eovlution are word for word exactly the same as those
previously offered by creation 'scientists' and ID 'theorists' which
have already been rejected as religious doctrine by every Federal judge
who has ever heard them, and oddly enough, those arguments appear in
creationist/ID religious tracts and nowhere else -- not a one of them
has ever been acccepted by any peer-reviewed science journal.
Coincidence, right?
Sir, you are a liar. A bare, bald-faced, deliberate, calculating,
intentional liar. With malice aforethought.
My suggestions to you? (1) save your nickels. You'll need them to pay
the lagl bill when you lose in court. (2) don't lie on the stand like
the Dover Dolts did. and (3) don't count on Howie Ahmanson's flunkies
to back you all the way on this one. When the going gets tough,
they'll skip town and leave you holding the bag, just like they did in
Dover.
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation email list:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/
Gordon Hill
alex.b...@gmail.com wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> There has been so much controversy over the past week regarding the
> recently passed Science Philosophy document (
> http://www.integrityinacademics.com ) in the Lancaster School District.
> I was invited by Marc to share my views here, and I thought it would be
> a great opportunity to share my thoughts.
See http://www.avpress.com/n/23/0323_s3.hts for the news from
Lancaster, CA.
GH
> First, reading through the original thread on the decision in
> California I realize that there are so many people that have the wrong
> idea over what this decision means. I know that the media is describing
> it as anti-evolution (they've sensationalized the story) but this
> Science Philosophy document is not an attack on evolution, nor is it a
> "backdoor" for the creationists. It simply allows (even encourages) the
> teachers to have discussions about science in the classroom. Evolution
> is mentioned only once in the entire document, and even then it is only
> to point out that it should be taught as theory, not "unalterable
> fact." I'm sure we all agree that makes sense.
>
> Second, my motives have been questioned. Because of the scare tactics
> and fear-mongering of the NCSE and other organizations, it is an
> automatic response to put anyone who even resembles an
> anti-evolutionist in the "creationism" camp - and then to immediately
> assume that I want to bring the Bible into the science class. These
> things couldn't be further from the truth. The motives behind this move
> are the sinking test scores - students don't care about science and
> they are failing the class miserably. While my idea to promote
> discussion (and hopefully pique their curiosity at the same time) may
> be off the mark, we must do something!
>
coaster
> Greetings,
>
> There has been so much controversy over the past week regarding the
> recently passed Science Philosophy document (
> http://www.integrityinacademics.com ) in the Lancaster School District.
> I was invited by Marc to share my views here, and I thought it would be
> a great opportunity to share my thoughts.
>
Please respond to the damning information recently come to light. You
have maintained that your motivation is not religious and not
anti-evolution. Yet the cached archive of
www.evolutionisimpossible.com which operates on the SAME DOMAIN as your
website www.integrityinacademics.com claims otherwise. You are also
shown to own both domain names and operate them on the SAME web host.
Is all of this just a cosmioc coincidence? If so then you should have
no trouble believing in abiogenesis which is far more likely by
comparison.
Even without this information there was enough "tone" in your text with
the words you chose and the way in which you defend yourself for many
people to conclude that you are not being honest about what you say.
Now we seem to have solid evidence to support that conclusion. Given
the context of this evidence and the strange focus on evolution
illustrated in your "Philosophy Policy" one can only conclude that you
do in fact have a very religious agenda.
It has been made quite clear on this newsgroup that the only people who
have anything to gain by disproving the scientifically held fact of
evolution are those who believe, to one degree or another, in the
literal words of the Bible. We can continue to be disgusted by the
behavior of Mr. Branning here and others, but we should hardly be
surprised by it. Lieing for Jesus is the M.O. of creation science
after all.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
alex.b...@gmail.com wrote:
>
<snip>
we do not support the inclusion of either subject in the
> science classroom.
So what. neither does Discovery Institute. At least, not since they
got their ass reamed in Dover. (shrug)
Why do IDers feel it necessary to lie about their motives?
<snip>
we want them to discuss
> some of the scientific differences that opponents of evolution have,
Such as?
Give us examples of the sort of "scientific differences" that you think
should be taught.
Dr.GH
> <alex.b...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1143317380.4...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > So many of the responses to my posts are asking the same questions that
> > I've already supplied answers to.
No Alex, you have avoided answers.
> >
> > 1) No, we do not have a new lesson plan for the class - we'll let the
> > teachers decide how best to educate their students.
>
> So you're withdrawing your program from Lancaster, I take it.
>
The key to any curricula is a lesson plan. This has several well
defined parts. Here is an example I wrote several years ago when I was
Director of Educational Programs at a small natural history museum in
California:
A Sixth Grade Curriculum
An example of our multiple curriculum standards approach is taken from
the following Sixth Grade science standards;
Earth Sciences (major focus)
Plate Tectonics
1.F "Students know how to explain major features of California
geology (including mountains, faults, volcanoes) in terms of plate
tectonics.
2.A "Students know water running downhill is the dominant process in
shaping the landscape, including California's landscape.
2.B "Students know rivers and streams are dynamic systems that erode,
transport sediment, change course, and flood their banks in natural and
recurring patterns.
2.D "Students know earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides, and
floods change human and wildlife habitats.
Physical Science (Heat)
3.A "Students know energy can be carried from one place to another by
heat flow or by waves, including water, light, and sound waves, or by
moving objects.
3.D "Students know heat energy is also transferred between objects by
radiation (radiation can travel through space).
4.A "Students know the sun is the major source of energy for
phenomena on Earth's surface; it powers winds, ocean currents, and
the water cycle.
4.B "Students know solar energy reaches Earth through radiation,
mostly in the form of visible light.
4.E "Students know differences in pressure, heat, air movement, and
humidity result in changes in weather.
Life Sciences (Ecology)
5.A "Students know energy entering ecosystems as sunlight is
transferred by producers into chemical energy through photosynthesis
and then organism to organism through food webs.
5.B "Students know matter is transferred over time from one organism
to others in the food web and between organisms and the physical
environment.
5.D "Students know different kinds of organisms may play similar
ecological roles in similar biomes.
5.E "Students know the number and types of organisms an ecosystem can
support depends on the resources available and on abiotic factors, such
as quantities of light and water, a range of temperatures, and soil
composition.
Resources
6.B "Students know different natural energy and material resources,
including air, soil, rocks, minerals, petroleum, fresh water, wildlife,
and forests, and know how to classify them as renewable or
nonrenewable.
6.C "Students know the natural origin of the materials used to make
common objects.
Investigation and Experimentation
7.G Interpret events by sequence and time from natural phenomena (e.g..
relative ages of rocks and intrusions).
7.H Identify changes in natural phenomena over time without
manipulating the phenomena (e.g.. a tree limb, a grove of trees, a
stream, a hill slope).
These sixteen standards requirements (many related to one another)
represent about 50% of the grade level totals and are addressed in a
single visit as follows:
Before the field trip, Teachers have started the identification of
common household materials, and their origins (e.g. aluminum=bauxite,
and plastic=petroleum). The students will collect aluminum, and
plastic waste from their homes to be brought to the Museum recycling
center on their field trip (6.B, 6.C).
The students then move into groups of twenty to maximize the contact
between the students and the Museum staff and facilitate flow. For
purposes of this narrative we will "follow" a single group for the
1.5 hour program. Approximately 45 minutes are spent in each area; the
Collections Room, and the Discovery Trail. The students enter the
Museum Collections room. There Docent provided content introduces the
bird, insect, and mammal mounts. The entire collection area is focused
on the Orange County environment through time. The Docent
points out the many preditor/prey relationships. These specimens, in
addition to skeleton mounts, and fossils partially satisfy Life
Sciences 5.B, and 5.D. The students who wish to may hold a live snake.
During a "free" time all students are encouraged to see, and feel
many of the fossil and mineral specimens. Scattered throughout the
Museum's Collection Room are Discovery Boxes, small, hands-on
experiential selections such as bear's fur, fossil shells, bones,
wildlife photos and so forth.
Following the Collections Room the students are gathered together for
the Discovery Trail. The Discovery Trail is an approximately 200
meter nature walk. The first station on the trail are large sandstone
blocks that have been installed in front of the Museum.
These specimens hold a variety of vertebrate and invertebrate fossils
and show a high degree of stratification (7.G). The Museum setting is
at the inland mouth of a coastal canyon transecting the San Joaquin
Hills. The San Joaquin Hills are Miocene marine sandstones and gravels
that were uplifted by tectonic movement in the Pliocene. The canyon
was formed by water flowing across the landscape as the hills were
uplifted, and has had multiple infilling and scouring episodes since
forming (1.F, 2.A, 2.B, 2.D, 7.H).
The trail moves from a Coastal Sage Scrub / Grasslands habitat and to a
Riparian Habitat before returning to the Museum. Because of seasonal
variation and varying wildlife visitation, the Discovery Trail is
always a fresh experience. There are over twenty native plants, many
which were important to Native Americans for food, medicine, and
shelter (related to History/Social Science 6.1.1-3). Some of the
medicines that were discovered by Native Americans (e.g. aspirin from
Salix-willow trees) are still used today. Several plant species have
interesting textures and/or smells which are related to their
ecological relationships with other plants and animals including
insects (5.B). The plants within a
habitat can be shown to actively compete for resources; light, water,
and nutrients. Sun light is the energy source for all photosynthetic
organisms (3.A, 3.D, 4.A, 4.B, 5.A).
The Discovery Trail moves down into the stream bed [steep stairs!]. We
feel a change in both the temperature and humidity, and see that there
is a marked change in the plant and animal species present (5.D, 5.E).
Soil building and removal episodes are clearly visible in the stream
banks (7.H, re-enforce 2.A, 2.B, 2.C).
Animals commonly detected or observed are raccoons, coyotes, rabbits,
ground squirrels, and bobcats as well as a number of birds, insects,
and reptiles. Animals not directly observed are detected by signs such
as tracks and scat. The scat, and occasional carcass are important
observational lessons in animal behavior (i.e. coyote territorial
marking) and is a direct referent to the propagation of mass and energy
through the environment (3.A, 5.A, 5.B).
> >
> > 2) I have never pretended to be a scientist or teacher - I am a
> > concerned citizen trying to do something good for our students.
>
You are an ignorant phony.
You are about to be a discredited phony.
Dr.GH
I can't wait to see this all come out in the newspapers.
Ernest Major
alex.b...@gmail.com writes
>I fail to see how running a web site with a catchy title (perhaps too
>catchy) that questions the science behind evolution makes me a
>creationist.
>
ourselves. Having page "How the laws of chemistry disprove evolution"
and "How the Laws of Mathematics Disprove the Theory of Evolution", and
the links selected in those pages, would seem to provide a prima facie
case that you're a creationist.
Didn't you notice that the post that outed you, also mentioned that some
of the web site was still available in Google's cache?
The evolutionisimpossible.com web site includes the following text
"Scientifically speaking, if something hasn't occurred in the past,
been witnessed in the present or re-created in a lab it is impossible.
Evolution depends on the mechanism of beneficial mutations that add to
the genetic makeup of the organism, specimen or plant -; all the while
ignoring the fact that genetic additions have never been witnessed,
observed or re-created"
The second sentence is untrue. (Perhaps you'll try telling us that
speciation hasn't been observed either.) The first is at best badly
phrased, at worse nonsense - taken literally it would be claiming that
bridge hands are impossible. (There are about 10^67 possible bridge
hands, so newly dealt bridge hands, if not pre-prepared are almost
always novel. It would also seem to be claiming that high critical
temperature copper oxide superconductors were impossible before they
were discovered - or that constitutional creationist lesson plans are
impossible.
--
alias Ernest Major
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.1/292 - Release Date: 24/03/2006
Lee Jay
"The sole purpose of the organization is to broaden the scientific
education of our students to include scientific evidence that poses
challenges to Darwin's evolutionary theory"
Since no such evidence exists outside of the Bible, your group has
nothing to offer those seeking a public school education.
Lee Jay
CreateThis
CreateThis
>>... The Science Philosophy document ...
> It is mostly not bad
An icepick in the heart is 'mostly not bad'. Only that pointy part at
the end is 'bad'.
CT
Dr.GH
CreateThis
> I have sent the thread URL to several newspaper reporters.
Good. Let's see how clearly they identify this cockroach and the
willful lies he told in public testimony as typical of antievolutionist
insects across the country.
Isn't being famous fun, Alex? Be sure to let us know how the trial
turns out.
CT
neverbetter
Stuart wrote:
> Ron O wrote:
> > Harun Yahya as a science source. What a joke. Do you think that he
> > told the board that he was taken in by propaganda written by an Islamic
> > creationist crackpot?
> >
>
> And a holocaust deniar to boot.
I'm disappointed. One would have thought that upstanding citizens who
are honestly worried about the standards of science education would go
to the trouble of finding some worthier sources for their websites
which disseminate misinformation about science.
Marc
alex.b...@gmail.com wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> There has been so much controversy over the past week regarding the
> recently passed Science Philosophy document (
> http://www.integrityinacademics.com ) in the Lancaster School District.
> I was invited by Marc to share my views here, and I thought it would be
> a great opportunity to share my thoughts.
Well done, Alex... thanks for stepping up to the plate.
As you can see, I was not kidding when I said there could
easily be a hundred posts to an interesting discussion in
just a day or so.... in this case, there were seventy or so
made while I was sleeping (having e-mailed you just before
crashing last night). I've only just looked at the first couple
but would say that John Harshman and others are quite right
to ask "why just evolution". I'll sit back now and have two
or maybe three cups of tea while I catch up on the thread,
but I just wanted to (immediately?) welcome you here.
As I mentioned in my e-mail to you inviting you here, there
is a LOT of archived information about "evolution" on the
web site, and also material about the "disinformation" you
will probably be reading about in some posts, and I hope
that you can approach the discussion here and the resources
on the web site with an enquiring mind to learn what the
role of evolution in modern biology, geology etc. really is.
I'll stick my comments into the thread when I've fully
woken up! (It's just 10am on a Sunday here in Sydney!)
Thanks for joining in,
(signed) marc
.
John Harshman
> So many of the responses to my posts are asking the same questions that
> I've already supplied answers to.
>
> 1) No, we do not have a new lesson plan for the class - we'll let the
> teachers decide how best to educate their students.
>
> 2) I have never pretended to be a scientist or teacher - I am a
> concerned citizen trying to do something good for our students.
>
> 3) Please do not attempt to tie me in with Dover or any other
> organization. Integrity in Academics is not a creationist organization
> in disguise, we are a group that is attempting to do something for our
> students, to raise the dismal test scores and get people interested in
> science again.
>
> We are a young organization (as noted in the Valley Press article) and
> we have only just begun our journey. The Science Philosophy document
> was written by local educators, approved *unanimously* by the local
> science teachers and has not received one complaint from any local
> citizens.
>
None of us here believe you, for the reasons that several people have
outlined and you have failed to respond to. We all think you are lying
about your motives. The evidence for this is plentiful on your web site,
and your failure to engage in any meaningful discussion of your claims
only confirms it.
You really should be ashamed of such dishonesty...or are you being
dishonest with yourself too?
John Harshman
> On 25 Mar 2006 12:09:40 -0800, alex.b...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>So many of the responses to my posts are asking the same questions that
>>I've already supplied answers to.
>>
>>1) No, we do not have a new lesson plan for the class - we'll let the
>>teachers decide how best to educate their students.
>>
>>2) I have never pretended to be a scientist or teacher - I am a
>>concerned citizen trying to do something good for our students.
>
>
> And you are a creationist, probably a YEC.
>
>>3) Please do not attempt to tie me in with Dover or any other
>>organization.
>
>
> How about www.evolutionisimpossible.com? See
> <http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/343ca950f13930e2?hl=en>.
!
*Now* are you ashamed of yourself, Alex? Or does your version of
Christianity reject "Thou shalt not bear false witness"? I'm speechless.
Thanks, Jon.
JoeBussen
Dr.GH wrote:
> I find that Mr. Branning has zero experience as an educator, zero
> experience as a scientist, and only minor experience as a conservative
> apologist.
>
> Mr. Branning's program is quite obviously creationist, and his denials
> are pure hypocrisy. When he writes "... students don't care about
> science and they are failing the class miserably" he is expecting us to
> believe that students will learn more if they are told that science is
> bunk and rubbish.
>
> I have over thirtyfive years of teaching experience from California
> middle schools to universities. I have never had students who were
> totally disengaged from learning science unless their parent's
> religious fanaticism had poisoned their minds years before they ever
> entered my classroom. Mr. Branning, like the rest of his ilk, is not
> content with merely the victims of parental intellectual abuse, but
> would like to inflict this on all students.
>
> We in America are faced with a critial choice with profound consequence
> to our national security- will we allow these so-called conservatives
> to dammage if not destroy the American scientific advantage along with
> the tradition of separation of church and state?
>
> Gary Hurd
Gary--if you don't mind a personal question, could you be the son of
Paul DeHart Hurd? Prof. P. DH Hurd was a great science educator at
Stanford, way back in the 60s. I and my (now) wife were among the many
science and math teachers who had the priviledge of attending one of
the summer institutes he ran.
Joe Bussen
Andrew McClure
> Integrity in Academics is not a creationist organization
> in disguise, we are a group that is attempting to do something for our
> students, to raise the dismal test scores and get people interested in
> science again.
You say that here and now-- but in the press release which you
apparently wrote and is linked on the very first page of your website,
your actions are described as "Encourages Students to
Question Evolution and other Scientific Theories", "encourages
classroom discussion of questions regarding Charles Darwin's theory of
evolution and other scientific theories", "propel science education out
of the nineteenth century and into the twenty-first century" (in
context obviously a reference to the 19th-century theories of Charles
Darwin), "By making sure Darwin's theory of evolution is taught
truthfully, instead of dogmatically, the Science Philosophy Policy will
energize students' interest in science and ensure that they become
scientifically literate citizens", "leaders in the swelling public
debate over how to teach Darwin's theory", "criticism of Darwinism in
the classroom", "willing to stand up against Darwinian
fundamentalists". Evolution is the focus of every paragraph in the
document.
http://www.integrityinacademics.com/newsreleases/Integrity%20News%20Release%2003-21-2006.pdf
This press release only mentions "energiz[ing] students' interest in
science and ensure that they become scientifically literate citizens"
once-- and only mentions it in the context of this being a mere
byproduct of the way you wish to teach "Darwin's theory of evolution".
The fact this only single sentence referencing the idea of "get[ting]
people interested in science again" comes three-fourths of the way
through your press release, and is introduced with an ", added
Branning", certainly sends the message that this is intended as being
an incidental benefit of the policy, not the primary intent.
"Test scores" are mentioned not once in either the press release or the
attached policy, and a search for
site:www.integrityinacademics.com "test scores"
on google reveals that that phrase in fact does not appear once on your
entire website.
In another post in this thread you claim that because the word
"evolution" was only one out of the 408 words in the policy, it is
unfair to characterize the policy as being about evolution. What are we
to make then of the fact that in your public press justification and
explanation of that exact same policy, you mention or reference
evolution in very nearly every sentence? What then do we make of the
fact that your website centrally references "Darwinism" on almost every
single page?
Which source do we believe when you talk about your motives? Do we
believe you here, where you say your intent is to promote test scores
and student interest in science, or do we believe your website and
single public press release, in which you describe your goal as raising
doubt about "Darwinism" and interest in science as being only an
incidental detail? Which source do we believe when we talk about your
intended relationship with creationist organizations? Do we believe you
on USENET when you say you do not want to be "tie[d] in with Dover or
any other organization", or do we believe you in your news release
where you personally tie yourself to exactly such organizations, when
you quote the approval of "other leaders in the swelling public debate
over how to teach Darwin's theory"-- specifically Larry Caldwell, who
Wikipedia at least describes as running a creationist organization
which has collaborated with the Discovery Institute in the past?
In short, which do we believe, your posts in this thread today, or the
entire rest of the body of your public statements? The two are in total
disagreement.
In the face of such contradictions, it seems to me the most reasonable
thing to believe here is that your goal is not to further science
education, but only to attack "darwinian evolution"; and that things
such as improving science education or getting students interested in
science are just disguises for your goals, which you retreat to only in
environments where it is specifically useful to distance yourself from
the hint of creationism. How can you possibly blame people from coming
to a conclusion such as this, when you have made it so easy for people
to reach that conclusion?-- all we have to do is read the link on the
first page of your website.
Pithecanthropus Erectus
> Many of you ask why single out evolution? The answer is simple: it is
> the only scientific theory that people talk about, arguably the only
> one laymen care about.
>
> Integrity in Academics is not putting forth any new lesson plans or
> even a change in curriculum, the new Science Philosophy is a
> recommendation for science teachers to abide by.
>
> neverbetter wrote: "I don't see how it's going to make them more
> interested in science and improve their scores if you simply tell them
> that you think that the theory of evolution is bogus."
> When did I say or imply that the theory of evolution is bogus?
>
> John Harshman writes: "Anyway, how is any policy that is explicitly and
> strictly about evolution going to significantly help science test
> scores?"
> This policy does _not_ explicitly address evolution! We are trying to
> get students interested in and intrigued by science, this philosophy is
> the best way we know how. Do you have any other ideas, maybe we can
> work together?
>
You can start by not lying about what the word "Theory" means in
science. Evolution is a fact, and there is a Theory of Evolution. The
Theory explains the fact with the best understanding of science.
ID recognizes the facts of evolution, but adds useless assertions that
supernatural causes intervened to guide it. Theistic Evolution makes
the same claim, but doesn't insist that the Theistic part be taught in
science classes.
You seem to be adding nothing of value to science, if that is your
stated goal, so one can only assume hidden agenda guide you . Come out
front with your agenda, if you dare.
--
Freeper:
"We need to change the law and make it legal to hunt liberals with dogs. "
Me:
I understand you are being flippant, but you are coming across as stupid.
Freeper:
I wasn't being flippant. I mean it.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Dr.GH wrote:
> When the lights come on, the cockroches run away.
>
> I can't wait to see this all come out in the newspapers.
Can we presume that someone out there is indeed making sure that the
newspapers are hearing about this . . . ?
It will be solid gold in court. Almost as good as the "Pandas"
manuscript morphing suddenly from a book about "creation" to a book
about "design".
Like I always said, all you have to do is let the fundies talk long
enough, and they shoot THEMSELVES in the head, every time. All they
have to do is shut their big mouths about their religious opinions
--------- and they just can't do it. Ain't none of them can go ten
minutes without shouting "JESUS SAVES!!!" and giving the whole game
away. (snicker) (giggle)
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> You can start by not lying about what the word "Theory" means in
> science. Evolution is a fact, and there is a Theory of Evolution. The
> Theory explains the fact with the best understanding of science.
Life forms have changed over time. That is a fact. The manner in which
they have changed and the causes of the change are a matter of theory.
We are pretty sure natural selection plays a major role but there is the
matter of genetic drifit and epigenic variation. That is an area which
is still pretty wide open. That is theory.
Gravity is a fact. Just drop something and you see for yourself. But how
gravity works? That is the subject of theories.
Bob Kolker
Zachriel
"Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kRTy+uQg...@meden.demon.co.uk...
> In message <1143325715.8...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> alex.b...@gmail.com writes
>>I fail to see how running a web site with a catchy title (perhaps too
>>catchy) that questions the science behind evolution makes me a
>>creationist.
>>
> Perhaps you should put the web site back up and let us see for
> ourselves.
For the reader's convenience, here is Google's cache of "Evolution is
Impossible".
http://tinyurl.com/jr6a6
--
Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
Mark VandeWettering
> I fail to see how running a web site with a catchy title (perhaps too
> catchy) that questions the science behind evolution makes me a
> creationist.
I'd start working on that testimony sooner, rather than later.
Mark
Raymond Griffith
On 3/25/06 6:04 PM, in article kRTy+uQg...@meden.demon.co.uk, "Ernest
Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <1143325715.8...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> alex.b...@gmail.com writes
>> I fail to see how running a web site with a catchy title (perhaps too
>> catchy) that questions the science behind evolution makes me a
>> creationist.
>>
> Perhaps you should put the web site back up and let us see for
> ourselves. Having page "How the laws of chemistry disprove evolution"
> and "How the Laws of Mathematics Disprove the Theory of Evolution", and
> the links selected in those pages, would seem to provide a prima facie
> case that you're a creationist.
Paste "How the Laws of Mathematics Disprove the Theory of Evolution" into a
google search. I came up with the cached page:
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:BhSxgUZG-UIJ:www.evolutionisimpossible.c
om/math.html+How+the+Laws+of+Mathematics+Disprove+the+Theory+of+Evolution&hl
=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=5&client=safari
From the page:
"If you were to thoroughly shuffle ten flash cards numbered one-to-ten and
laid them out, the odds of them lining up in order is one in 3,628,800. The
probability rapidly decreases the more variables you add if you were to
have one hundred cards numbered in order and performed the same experiment
the odds would be one in 10^158!
Astronomers tell us there are no more than 10^87 particles in the universe.
Assuming the universe is no more than thirty billion years old (10^18
seconds) and each particle can participate in a thousand billion (10^12)
different reactions every second, the maximum number of reactions occurring
would be 10^117. Using this equation we understand the probability of an
event that requires more than 10^117 events is zero or impossible.
The cells that life builds upon are infinitely more complex[1] than a
specimen with one hundred parts thus we can logically conclude that life
originating from chance is impossible. Marcel Golay[2] estimated that the
chance of replicating the simplest protein molecule is one in 10^450. Frank
Salisbury[3] put the probability of a standard DNA strand to be one in
10^600."
It is, of course, the old and very tired argument that what we see today is
exactly what was intended to happen. If you were to get an honest answer
from Alex Branning, he would wind up admitting that he does indeed think
that the universe was intended to produce *him*, that his existence was no
accident or afterthought. After all, God had him in mind from eternity past.
The very nasty theology that this produces is something Alex doesn't think
about. He is no more a theologian than he is a scientist. But this
anthropomorphic conviction that the universe was designed around humanity
(extended to the egocentrism of fundamentalists who include the specific
individual and the circumstances in the plans) is a common mode of thought
among Christians. After all, Genesis records that the world was made for
man. Alex certainly believes this (he may correct me if he does not, of
course!).
Alex uses probability in ways that it was never intended, and makes certain
unstated assumptions that do not hold up under investigation.
But this mode of thinking explains why people like Alex are so ready to lie
about their intentions and motivations. He is not personally responsible for
lying, or for any of his behavior! After all, if God planned everything so
that Alex would be here to do battle with the enemy, every action Alex does
is controlled by God. And if God commands him to say something, then it
can't really be a lie, can it? Even if it is.
His supporting works for the article include:
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/irreducible_complexity.html
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=155
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter10.asp
http://www.creationevolution.net/irreducible_complexity.htm
So Alex didn't have a site with just a catchy title. Alex is a lying little
weasel who will probably begin to regret thinking that he could cover his
tracks merely by taking down the site. But the Scriptures he thinks he
believes could have told him that every falsehood will be revealed in the
light of day. His turn!
Regards,
Raymond E. Griffith
Mark Stahl
<alex.b...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143306872.4...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> Many of you ask why single out evolution? The answer is simple: it is
> the only scientific theory that people talk about, arguably the only
> one laymen care about.
This is totally absurd. For one, there are plenty of other scientific
theories that people talk about (ever hear of Stephen Hawking?). For
another, it hardly matters which theories people "talk about"; if you're
committed to providing a better scientific education for students, you
should be interested in all of the most important theories and those which
provide the best examples of the scientific process.
>
> Integrity in Academics is not putting forth any new lesson plans or
> even a change in curriculum, the new Science Philosophy is a
> recommendation for science teachers to abide by.
No, it pretty clearly is nothing of the kind. If you think it is, what
(specifically) is your recommendation? It's not on your website.
>
> neverbetter wrote: "I don't see how it's going to make them more
> interested in science and improve their scores if you simply tell them
> that you think that the theory of evolution is bogus."
> When did I say or imply that the theory of evolution is bogus?
Directly on your website:
"The sole purpose of the organization is to broaden the scientific education
of our students to include scientific evidence that poses challenges to
Darwin's evolutionary theory, such as the Cambrian Explosion, along with
scientific evidence that supports Darwin's theory.."
As I'm sure you're well aware, there is no scientific evidence that "poses
challenges" to evolutionary theory (your example of the Cambrian explosion
is superb support *for* evolutionary theory); therefore you're either
massively uneducated or just garden-variety dishonest.
>
> John Harshman writes: "Anyway, how is any policy that is explicitly and
> strictly about evolution going to significantly help science test
> scores?"
> This policy does _not_ explicitly address evolution!
Your website claims otherwise.
> We are trying to
> get students interested in and intrigued by science, this philosophy is
> the best way we know how.
Then you're an idiot. Telling students that something exists which does not
seems like the exact opposite of what anyone genuinely interested in
education would want to do.
> Do you have any other ideas, maybe we can
> work together?
Well, for a start you can take down your website, stop posting to usenet,
and stop trying to influence education policy at all. That would seem to be
about the best contribution you could make.
Mark Stahl
<alex.b...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143325715.8...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>I fail to see how running a web site with a catchy title (perhaps too
> catchy) that questions the science behind evolution makes me a
> creationist.
I suppose the alternative could be that you have a new, alternative theory
of the origins of species, but I kind of doubt it. The overwhelming majority
of people who "question the science behind evolution" (science which the
scientists in the field remain in essentially unequivocal support of) are
creationists. Thus the likelihod.
Let's give you the benefit of the doubt, and say you're not a creationist.
Answer this: What purpose would it serve to have elementary and high school
students "questioning" scientific interpretations that are uncontroversial
within the scientific community?
Dr.GH
have enjoyed the experience.
Oh, watch that "way back in the sixtys" OK? Makes me feel right old it
does. ;-)
Cheezits
> On 3/25/06 6:04 PM, in article kRTy+uQg...@meden.demon.co.uk,
> "Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> alex.b...@gmail.com writes
>>> I fail to see how running a web site with a catchy title (perhaps
>>> too catchy) that questions the science behind evolution makes me a
>>> creationist.
No, I don't see what questioning evolution has to do with creationism
either. <banging head on keyboard>
>> Perhaps you should put the web site back up and let us see for
>> ourselves. Having page "How the laws of chemistry disprove evolution"
>> and "How the Laws of Mathematics Disprove the Theory of Evolution",
>> and the links selected in those pages, would seem to provide a prima
>> facie case that you're a creationist.
[etc.]
> From the page:
> "If you were to thoroughly shuffle ten flash cards numbered one-to-ten
> and laid them out, the odds of them lining up in order is one in
> 3,628,800. The probability rapidly decreases the more variables you
> add if you were to have one hundred cards numbered in order and
> performed the same experiment the odds would be one in 10^158!
[etc.]
And that proves that shuffling 100 cards is impossible! No matter what
combination you get, the odds were 1 in 10^158! I wonder if Alex is
planning on improving the teaching of math as well.
> His supporting works for the article include:
>
> http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/irreducible_complexity.html
> http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=155
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter10.asp
> http://www.creationevolution.net/irreducible_complexity.htm
Nothing creationist there, eh? Just more catchy titles? :-D
Sue
--
I didn't lie! I was writing fiction with my mouth! - Homer Simpson
Lee Oswald Ving
@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
> I fail to see how running a web site with a catchy title (perhaps too
> catchy) that questions the science behind evolution makes me a
> creationist.
Indeed. So far, you have consistently failed to see how acting like a
Creationist makes you a Creationist. No one else has experienced this
problem, though.
Dr.GH
I'll repeat again in the AM.
Mark Isaak
>Greetings,
>
>There has been so much controversy over the past week regarding the
>recently passed Science Philosophy document (
>http://www.integrityinacademics.com ) in the Lancaster School District.
>I was invited by Marc to share my views here, and I thought it would be
>a great opportunity to share my thoughts.
>
>First, reading through the original thread on the decision in
>California I realize that there are so many people that have the wrong
>idea over what this decision means. I know that the media is describing
>it as anti-evolution (they've sensationalized the story) but this
>Science Philosophy document is not an attack on evolution, nor is it a
>"backdoor" for the creationists. It simply allows (even encourages) the
>teachers to have discussions about science in the classroom. Evolution
>is mentioned only once in the entire document, and even then it is only
>to point out that it should be taught as theory, not "unalterable
>fact." I'm sure we all agree that makes sense.
Why evolution and not the theory of gravity, which is more
problematic? Why not germ theory, which school kids understand
better?
Why does your science philsophy statement never mention evolution
without attaching Darwin's name to it? Do you know so little about
evolution yourself to be unaware of the contributions of Fisher,
Wright, Margulis, and thousands of other researchers? Evolution does
not belong to any one person.
>Second, my motives have been questioned. Because of the scare tactics
>and fear-mongering of the NCSE and other organizations, it is an
>automatic response to put anyone who even resembles an
>anti-evolutionist in the "creationism" camp - and then to immediately
>assume that I want to bring the Bible into the science class. These
>things couldn't be further from the truth.
Your nose is growing longer.
"The sole purpose of the organization is to broaden the scientific
education of our students to include scientific evidence that poses
challenges to Darwin's evolutionary theory, such as the Cambrian
Explosion, along with scientific evidence that supports Darwin's
theory."
That could not have been written by anyone but a creationist.
>The motives behind this move
>are the sinking test scores - students don't care about science and
>they are failing the class miserably. While my idea to promote
>discussion (and hopefully pique their curiosity at the same time) may
>be off the mark, we must do something!
Even though it makes the problem worse?
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Dr.GH
It was back up at 18:30 PST.
About Us:
"About EvolutionIsImpossible.com
EvolutionIsImpossible.com's purpose is to shatter any false notion that
evolution is even a slightly viable perspective. To achieve this
purpose, we want to reach humanistic naturalists and other evolution
believers with truth, packaged in short and simple essays written at a
widely accessible level. A website was chosen as the appropriate
vehicle for these essays and so EvolutionIsImpossible.com was
conceived. EvolutionIsImpossible.com is aimed at both planting seeds of
doubt in humanistic naturalists and watering any doubts that the less
hardened may have.
EvolutionIsImpossible does not support Intelligent Design, creation or
any explanation for the origin of life. Enjoy our web site and let us
know what you think by emailing us: feed...@evolutionisimpossible.com"
Mark Isaak
>Many of you ask why single out evolution? The answer is simple: it is
>the only scientific theory that people talk about, arguably the only
>one laymen care about.
Can you give one example of a "discussion that questions the theory
[of evolution]" which is scientifically valid and which would be at a
grade level appropriate for high school students or younger?
No, I didn't think you could.
In that case, given that your entire rationale is moot, why not junk
the whole idea right now?
R. Baldwin
news:1143317380.4...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> So many of the responses to my posts are asking the same questions that
> I've already supplied answers to.
>
> 1) No, we do not have a new lesson plan for the class - we'll let the
> teachers decide how best to educate their students.
>
> 2) I have never pretended to be a scientist or teacher - I am a
> concerned citizen trying to do something good for our students.
>
> organization. Integrity in Academics is not a creationist organization
> in disguise, we are a group that is attempting to do something for our
> students, to raise the dismal test scores and get people interested in
> science again.
>
> we have only just begun our journey. The Science Philosophy document
> was written by local educators, approved *unanimously* by the local
> science teachers and has not received one complaint from any local
> citizens.
>
If you want integrity in academics, start with the NSTA standards.
R. Baldwin
news:1143310779....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> John, in a 408-word philosophy statement, the theory of evolution is
> discussed in one sentence, less than 3% of the document focuses on it.
>
> My organization's goal is to, as you noted, partner with teachers to
> improve the way evolution is taught. I'm sure you read our mission
> statement which addresses our views on intelligent design and
> creationism: we do not support the inclusion of either subject in the
> science classroom.
>
> As I have noted on this thread before, we are _not_ encouraging
> teachers to change the way evolution is taught, we want them to discuss
> some of the scientific differences that opponents of evolution have,
> and we want them to get the students thinking so that the students can
> start thinking for themselves.
>
> We want science in science class. We want discussion in the science
> class. We do NOT advocate alternatives to the origins or diversity of
> life. We do NOT want to change the curriculum We do NOT want to water
> down the teaching of evolution in the class. We want to initiate
> discussions and encourage the scientists of tomorrow to start thinking
> today.
>
There are no scientific objections to evolution by opponents of evolution.
The opponents of evolution have religious and cultural objections, and
specious objections that they like to think is scientific.