61
   

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

 
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Nov, 2009 11:11 am
@cicerone imposter,
PSXXX's nose is so high, he can smell the scent of the stratosphere.
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Mon 30 Nov, 2009 11:43 am
@Lightwizard,
You have it ass backwards Wiz. My nose is so near the ground that I can smell which way the wind blows.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Nov, 2009 12:30 pm
Now he has to post a statement about his own farts.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2009 07:44 pm
Quote:
The Creationism vs. Evolution Debate
(David Barber, The University of Tennessee Pacer, 12/2/09)

Several weeks ago our campus was flooded with large full color posters and large portable billboards advertising a "Creation/Evolution Seminar" with Dr. Brad Harrub.

I'm interested in evolution and I could tell that Dr. Harrub would be arguing for creation. I called the phone number on the poster and was told that Dr. Harrub would be speaking for about 20 minutes and then have a discussion with the audience. On these terms I decided to join about 200 people at Watkins for the session on November 21, "Evolutionary Hoaxes and the Dinosaurs."

Dr. Harrub, a charismatic man in the mold of a seasoned televangelist, established the parameters of his argument in the first minutes of his talk. As I understood him, Dr. Harrub believes that Americans have been indoctrinated into a false belief in evolution. Champions of evolutionary theory, Dr. Harrub contended, largely base their claims on falsified evidence and even evolutionists themselves know that the evolutionary story they tell is a lie.

Dr. Harrub began his talk with a discussion of "Evolutionary Hoaxes." He chose for his example the story of the peppered moth, a famous case about which many of us have heard something. Prior to the industrial revolution in England the peppered moth was a light colored moth with a sprinkle of black spots. As England's industrial towns began to pour sooty pollutants into the atmosphere these moths turned much darker in color, evolutionists claiming that this was a case of natural selection. That is, the moths with less "pepper" in their coloration were easier prey for birds when cast against the darker background of the soot-laden trees. Moths with more "pepper" survived and passed on this trait to subsequent generations, leading to a progressive darkening in the moths' coloration.

Dr. Harrub exposed this classical example of natural selection as a falsehood. The scientist who conducted the experiment in which he tested light colored versus dark colored moths for their vulnerability to predation had conducted shoddy science, at best.

People not familiar with the extensive scientific work demonstrating natural selection's power might well assume that this peppered moth story was typical of how scientists hoodwink the public.

That this is false, that species do change, and change radically, in response to their environment, is proven every single day, however. Insects, for example, have developed resistance and immunities to poisons that formerly killed them in droves. We now have strains of staph bacteria that have successfully engineered resistance to a variety of drugs. Formerly treatable bacterial infections are now killing people. In other words, these insects and bacteria have evolved before our eyes.

But having discredited the peppered moth story, Dr. Harrub felt no need to conduct a serious discussion of natural selection. It was time to get to the heart of his lecture: evolutionists, according to Dr. Harrub, begin indoctrinating Americans from a very young age using for their purpose that creature which every child loves, the dinosaur. Go to any museum, Dr. Harrub urged, and you will see reconstructed fossils of these giant reptiles. Beneath these fossils you'll see little explanatory plaques telling you that the dinosaurs lived a hundred million years ago and became extinct 65 million years back, long before human beings came on the scene.

Dr. Harrub determined to set this record straight. His first witness: the Bible, or rather how Dr. Harrub reads the Bible. According to this Ph.D. in Neurobiology, God created the world and everything on it in six days some 6000 years ago. If this is so, then it would be obviously impossible for the dinosaurs to have died 65 millions years ago; and, human beings and dinosaurs must have coexisted with one another.

Evidence? Dr. Harrub offered a powerpoint slide of a small dinosaur within the gut of the fossilized remains of a mammal. I am not sure why Dr. Harrub believes that this is evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. Evolutionary scientists affirm that mammals and dinosaurs coexisted over a period of nearly 150 million years. This piece of Dr. Harrub's presentation makes sense only if you hold that animals don't evolve. The presence of a single mammal, I guess, proves that human beings must have existed too.

I should mention that by now Dr. Harrub had consumed the twenty minutes I'd been told he'd speak and he was still going strong. I was getting antsy because I had as yet heard no real evidence for Dr. Harrub's argument. But now Dr. Harrub was threatening to demolish one of the key elements of evolutionary theory: radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is one of the most important tools scientists use to date the age of the earth and the age of fossils.

A variety of chemical elements - potassium, carbon, uranium, thorium, etc. - exist in stable and unstable, or radioactive, forms. Over time, the unstable forms of these elements deteriorate and leave behind a stable element in its place. This deterioration of the unstable "isotope" occurs on average at a steady rate, expressed in terms of radioactive half-life.

Radioactive carbon, Carbon-14, for example, has a half-life of not quite 6,000 years. When an animal or plant dies it ceases to consume Carbon-14, and the Carbon-14 begins to deteriorate, turning into the stable element Nitrogen, Carbon-14's "daughter" element. Since the amount of Carbon-14 in the environment remains fairly constant, if the remains of a given animal contain only half the Carbon-14 that one would expect to find in the cells of a living animal, then scientists can say that the animal likely died 6,000 years ago. To be sure, especially given the peculiarities of Carbon-14, and its relatively short half-life, scientists must be extremely cautious in their Carbon-14 dating, cross-checking their findings with other means whenever possible.

Naturally enough, Dr. Harrub trained his guns on Carbon-14 dating as the sole representative of radiometric dating. Powerpoints of living animals dated as having died 10,000 years ago! Powerpoints of one and the same animal with widely divergent ages! And, of course, since Dr. Harrub offered not one word of how scientists attempt to compensate for and cross-check Carbon-14 datings, it was hardly necessary for him to ask the obvious: how could any intelligent human being rely on such unreliable data to assess the age of dinosaurs, or of anything?

But wait, Dr. Harrub was not done demolishing the validity of radiometric dating. He called as his next witness AGAINST radiometric dating none other than Richard Dawkins, world renowned atheist and one of the foremost champions of evolution in the world today, a modern day Darwin. Here is the confession that Harrub extracted from Dawkins and placed on his powerpoint :
"The radiocarbon stopwatch buzzes round at a great rate, so fast that, after some thousands of years, its spring is almost wound down and the watch is no longer reliable. It is useful for dating organic material on the … timescale where we are dealing in hundreds or a few thousands of year, but it is no good for the evolutionary timescale where we are dealing with millions of years" (from Dawkin's book, The Blind Watchmaker, p.226).

Well, this is certainly a triumph for Dr. Harrub. How could scientists seriously say that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago when the great Dawkins says that radiocarbon dating is worthless for measuring millions of years? Only … only, Dr. Harrub has avoided the fact that scientists don't use radioCARBON dating for measuring the age of ancient fossils or rocks. Of course, this is precisely what Dawkins was explaining when Harrub lifted Dawkins's words out of context.

Some radioactive isotopes have extremely long half-lives. Rubidium-87, for example, has a half-life of 49 billion years. Thorium-232 has a half-life of 14 billion years; Uranium-238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, and so on. Because an ancient rock has a combination of these and other radioactive elements, each with a different half-life, you can cross-check the findings on one radioactive isotope with the findings of two, three, or more isotopes in the same rock. So for example, the same sample of moon rock taken back to Earth by the Apollo 11 astronauts was tested using three different radioactive isotopes, Argon, Rubidium, and Samarium, and all came back with ages ranging from 3.49 billion years to 3.57 billion years.

The oldest rocks on earth, ancient meteorites, have, by these means and cross-checks, been dated at 4.5 billion years of age. And it has been through these careful samplings and cross-checks of radioactive isotopes that scientists of whole variety of nationalities and religious beliefs have come up with the estimate that dinosaurs went extinct about 65 million years ago, on the one hand, and that modern day humans first walked the earth less than a million years ago.

Well, at about this point Dr. Harrub announced that he'd go on for another 30 minutes. As his first 20 minutes were already up, and as he had made no serious argument for his thesis to that point, I left, angered and dismayed. Angered and dismayed because I suspected that the majority of people in Watkins that night knew very little about evolutionary theory going into Dr. Harrub's talk, and went away with even less knowledge. Angered and dismayed, because many of those people left Watkins that night more convinced than ever that they are the victims of a massive effort at indoctrination, indoctrination aimed at taking away from them everything they hold dear.

And of course, ironically, they are right. A massive effort at indoctrination is afoot. But it is not the scientists doing the indoctrinating.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2009 07:58 pm
@wandeljw,
I cant believe that a "Dr Harrub" would be so lame as to use two well beaten-up arguments, namely
A. "peppered moths explain the mechanism of natural selection but not evolution" and

B. "C14 , because of its short half -life is only usable for time durations of less than 50000 yearsBCE ".

The fact that this writer even got some column space to respond is an example of how little respect for knowledge there really is out there.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2009 08:44 pm
I don't think he IDer in the street cares about the logic at all. They just seem to want to see some trusted figures take potshots at it.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2009 08:45 pm
@farmerman,
It is sad that any university would sponsor such dishonest speakers. A few weeks ago I posted a story about a West Virginia university that also sponsored a creationist lecture.
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2009 08:53 pm
@wandeljw,
It can be construed as practicing the old adage about giving someone enough rope. Dr. Hubbub fell for the bait and went out on that same weak limb they all do, ending up on the ground with another old adage -- egg on their faces. CT is correct -- those who are disinterested or only have a passing interest in science are are not going to be convinced one way or another by such an absurd twenty minute mini-lecture. If they are already convinced by their religion, it may provide some sort of tenuous comfort.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2009 08:54 pm
@wandeljw,
This sentence caught my eye:
Quote:
As I understood him, Dr. Harrub believes that Americans have been indoctrinated into a false belief in evolution. Champions of evolutionary theory, Dr. Harrub contended, largely base their claims on falsified evidence and even evolutionists themselves know that the evolutionary story they tell is a lie.


Dr Harrub made two generalized statements without providing an explanation for them, and he's a PhD?

Where and how were Americans "indoctrinated into a false belief in evolution?"

Did anyone in the audience provide factual evidence in support of evolution at this seminar? Why did Dr Harrub only speak about moths? Is that the extent of his knowledge about evolution? Was that the best he could do?

Did Dr Harrub identify any "falsified evidence?" Why not?

Did anyone in the audience challenge Dr Harrub after his speech?

Also from the article:
Quote:
According to this Ph.D. in Neurobiology, God created the world and everything on it in six days some 6000 years ago.


Did any science student challenge Dr Harrub on this claim?



spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 10:27 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Where and how were Americans "indoctrinated into a false belief in evolution?"


Wherever the tree of life nonsense was perpetrated and the idea that there's a "progess upwards" towards the wonderful creatures we human animals are. Or that time is a factor in the evolutionary process.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 10:55 am
Are our brave and honest evolutionists not prepared to come forward and congratulate Tiger Woods on his adhering to the principles they hold dear and also to put into scientific language what the mealy-mouthed euphemism "romantic links with several young females" means?

After all--we are grown ups on here and there's no need for us to be restricted to the morality and expression forms usually reserved for the Mothers of America coffee morning gatherings. To do so would obviously serve to show that the extent to which Christian thinking is welded into the very marrow of our bones.

I congratulate Mr Woods and am shocked to read that he "regrets with all his heart" the perfectly natural patterns of behaviour he has exhibited given the obvious allure of the young females concerned who show in their photographs the extent to which they have had recourse to the tertiary sexual characteristics provided by the American industry dedicated at great expense to the beautification of the female form and which are, on all known scientific principles, one gigantic lie.

To a strict evolutionist only the primary sexual characteristic is of any significance.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 12:21 pm
@spendius,
spendi,
What in hell is "the tree of life nonsense" you claim about "progress upwards?"

You really don't understand evolution; some forms of life disappeared from this planet through natural causes. That's all part of evolution.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 01:18 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Go give talks in the kindergarten ci. Your blather doesn't interest me.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 01:18 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Upwards in time is the opposite of backwards in time? I think the Pope's head is consistently up-side-down (maybe in the toilet?) and, as usual, is talking out of his ass.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2009 02:10 pm
@Lightwizard,
You seem a bit anal Wiz.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2009 09:10 pm
Quote:
California Science Center Sued for Info by Intelligent Design Group
(By Nathan Black, The Christian Post, December 4, 2009)

The Discovery Institute, an intelligent design think tank, has filed a petition against the California Science Center for refusing to disclose certain public documents.

The petition comes after the American Freedom Alliance filed a lawsuit against the science center for canceling a contract to screen a pro-intelligent design video at the center’s IMAX Theater.

Following the cancellation, the Discovery Institute requested the center to release public documents under the California Public Records Act. On Nov. 2, the center released 44 pages of documents and claimed no documents were withheld, except some personal information such as telephone numbers and email addresses.

However, the intelligent design think tank contends the claims are false and that some e-mail communications, including ones with the Smithsonian Institution " which allegedly expressed angst over the screening " and ones by decision makers, were not disclosed.

“The Center withheld public communications by decision makers who cancelled the contract with AFA,” said Casey Luskin, program officer in Public Policy and Legal Affairs at the Discovery Institute. “We believe the reason the California Science Center withheld these public documents is simple: the e-mails show evidence of discrimination against the pro-intelligent design viewpoint.”

The film, “Darwin’s Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record,” had been scheduled to be shown at the California Science Center on Oct. 25. The Los Angeles premiere was being sponsored by the AFA.

“Darwin’s Dilemma” is the third film in the intelligent design trilogy from Illustra Media. It explores the Cambrian explosion, “when in a moment of geological time complex animals first appeared on earth fully formed, without evidence of any evolutionary ancestors.” Some of the scientists interviewed in the film propose the theory of intelligent design as an alternative explanation for the appearance of animal life in the Cambrian period.

Pro-evolution film “We Are Born of the Stars” was also scheduled to be shown to provide balance to a discussion about life’s origin after the screening.

However, early in October, the center canceled its contract with the AFA, according to the Discovery Institute. The AFA alleges in its lawsuit that museum officials were fearful of having intelligent design discussed in any context.

AFA says its free speech rights were violated and alleges that CSC officials “conspired to drop the event because they did not want the museum to be viewed as legitimizing intelligent design as a scientific theory.”

A request was made to the center for the release of public documents.

Among some of the documents obtained, one e-mail sent by University of Southern California professor Hilary Schor on Oct. 6 states, “I’m less troubled by the freedom of speech issues [i.e., the suppression of freedom of speech] than why my tax dollars which support the California Science Center are being spent on hosting religious propaganda!”

Another document shows Ken Phillips, a curator at the CSC, stating, “I personally have a real problem with anything that elevates the concept of intelligent design to a level that makes it appear as though it should be considered equally alongside Darwinian theory as a possible alternative to natural selection. In other words, I see us getting royally played by the Center for Science and Culture resulting in long term damage to our credibility and judgment for a very long time. … No institute supporting an essentially religious philosophy of creation is required to assure that appropriate critique comes to bear on the Darwinian theory.”

AFA and the Discovery Institute argue that the cancellation was a result of discrimination and “intolerance for the scientific viewpoint expressed and scientific content contained in ‘Darwin’s Dilemma.’”

“It is a fundamental principle of First Amendment jurisprudence that when a governmental entity or sub-unit (such as CSC) opens its facilities as a public forum, it is not constitutionally permissible to censor speech based on viewpoint or content,” the think tank maintains.

The California Science Center, an affiliate of the Smithsonian Institution, is a public-private partnership between the State of California and the not-for-profit California Science Center Foundation.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2009 09:42 pm
@wandeljw,
Let them spend their money; all they're doing is paying for the publicity and nothing else. They will never learn science, because their religion has already taken over their brains.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2009 10:33 am
@cicerone imposter,
You continually speaking in the name of science is ridiculous ci. You don't know any. All the above, on which you comment so casually, is inevitable. So much so that one might justifiably consider the possibility that it was engineered by the Founding Fathers (all patriarchs) with an eye on the main chance for the legal profession. The FFs must have known that religion is an integral part of human nature and ineradicable. And they must have known that Church and State had been in an intimate union since about the 4th century as dual arms of government with power shifts between them along the way but never sundered.

The separation of Church and State in the Federal Constitution is sometimes said to have had unexpected effects. But that assumes that the FFs were a bit thick and didn't know what they were doing. That's an assumption I don't make. I would maintain, purely for the purpose of the argument of course, that not only were the effects not unexpected but that the separation was specifically designed to cause them and was successful in doing so. I support the conspiracy theory of history consistent with ID rather than the Cock-up theory of the evolutionists.

The effect, which I think intended, was to let Americans choose their religion which is obviously a move back to heresy, faction and presumably ending in full blown Paganism. That's when there are so many gods that there's a god of the ashtray and the potato peeler which causes divine glory to be diluted and the god of war becomes just another god, along with the god of underpants, rather than a God to crusade for.

Religion cut loose. The result, obviously, is as many denominations as there were in the days of Marcion and Bar Daisan and, dare I say, Thelca who scoffed at men's beards and who deserves to have a shaving product named after her. And these denominations flourish.

The freedom to choose any version of Christianity, and there were a lot, no matter how emotional or how base the appeal. And they could be marketed as consumer choices with the flair for business and commerce which has been so expertly practiced in the USA on a whole range of products such as minted toothpaste and white-wall tyres. Marginal groups and various niches, both exploited and created, reach the point where orthodoxy disintegrates and the niches are all there is. Like with curtain patterns. Politicians, mainly legal types, are the only source of guidance once orthodoxy has disintegrated. And very few of them dare contradict their wives on anything of importance as some cult leaders have done. Mr Squeaky-Clean is in charge now. Anybody with a brilliant future beckoning him had better watch his step.

And how wonderful all this is for atheists. It allows them to pick out from this multiplicity of heresies and target one they choose, an extreme nutty one for preference on the SD principle, (that's sitting duck), as wande so often does, and by concentrating their vituperation on their choice they convince themselves that they are attacking and discrediting Christianity itself and, by extension, all beliefs and religious observances. A grand delusion if ever there was one.

Hence it comes about that the constitutional separation of Church and State functions in the same way for atheists as does setting a sitting duck on the porch taffrail does for the armchair hunter so he can pose as a real hunter by carrying a dead duck about with him in the selfsame psychological state that thinks of itself as having potted orthodox Christianity by potting one or two of the tailor-made consumer choices available which, it has to be admitted, requires very little expertise as can be seen on these threads.

In ordinary bar-room language it is a complete and utter wimpy cop-out which, if not done cynically as Saint Paul recommended, flags up a woeful lack of understanding of even the simplest aspects of these matters. Being abled to pretend that they have anything significant to say is the very reason anti-IDers adhere, like **** to a blanket, to the doctrine of the separation of Church and State which is a wedge that allows them to flatter themselves into thinking that they are attacking Christianity and they are actually not even coming close in the same way that the armchair hunter couldn't hit a flying duck.

Nor do they touch the essence of these cults they pick out so carefully when they are seen collectively just as they don't go anywhere near the social consequences of destroying that essence which one might expect as there is no chance of them doing so because the crass banalities of science are not enough for the masses and the spokespersons for science are no match for the charismatic preachers in alliance with American business enterprise.



0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2009 11:13 am
@cicerone imposter,
It's insignificant news -- there is but one link in Google news and, wouldn't you know, it's the Discovery Institute Blog. A general web search pulls up almost exclusively, wouldn't you know, the Discovery Institute Blog. Time to drop the "l" our of Blog in honor of the DI, whose acronym should really be DADI (as it's your Daddy, oh, believers in alchemy, astrology, Santa Clause, the Spirit World, psychics, supernatural Daddy's, and the list is too long to give them all discredit). Dark Ages Discovery Institute
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2009 11:15 am
@Lightwizard,
My thesis proved first smack off.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 06/20/2025 at 06:18:47