Young Earth Creationist Attack on the New Texas Earth and Space Science Course

Texas Citizens for Science ^ | January 15, 2009 | Steven Schafersman, Ph.D.

[Coyoteman]

The new Earth and Space Science (ESS) course standards (and all other science course standards) will be up for approval before the State Board of Education (SBOE) during January 21-23. Some SBOE members--the seven who are Young Earth Creationists (YECs)--will attempt to make changes to the ESS standards in ways that will damage the scientific integrity and accuracy of the course. In particular, these SBOE members will try to negatively modify or delete the standards that require students to understand the following topics that deal with scientific topics they consider controversial: age of the Earth and universe, radiometric dating, evolution of fossil life, and the origin of life by abiotic chemical processes. These topics are the ones that YECs consider to be controversial; indeed, they are obsessed with them to the exclusion of everything else.

Continues...

[CottShop]

I’ll see hwat I can do about htat

[YHAOS]

"I’ll see hwat I can do about htat"

LOL!

[grey_whiskers]

I find it odd that conservatives find the methods of forensic science adequately trustworthy to convict and execute criminals, but doubt it when "the glove don't fit" their religious beliefs.

Gradations of confidence according to different methodologies, for different prospective goals.

Even within forensics, for example.

'Preponderance of the evidence' vs. 'beyond a reasonable doubt' vs. 'QED'

Cheers!

[CottShop]

[[Gradations of confidence according to different methodologies, for different prospective goals.]]

Forensics is equally accepted by Christians for both criminal cases and for science investigations- What Miller was asserting went WAY beyond forensic evidnece, and was nothign short of intelligently designing a ‘natural evolution’ for blood clotting- it was nothign more than a ‘just so’ story rife with if’s but’s and coulda’s. His opening ‘explanation’ demanded a duplication take place, AND that it be Damaged/altered in a very specific manner before hte process could even get started, THEN, he demands that a switch take place ensuring that the cell can turn on ‘at some future point’ in not the one singular organ it was intended to, but now, in two organs so as to facilitate further manipulations and mutations further down hte line in his wild scenario- that wasn’t science- that was spinning a fairy tale- plain and simple-

Miller defeated his own argument himself, apparenlty without even recognizing htat he had done so- He claims blood clotting coudl evolve naturally to a more complex system, then goes on to describe an intelligently DESIGNED network of circumstances that all must have happened in happy succession while cells were being controlled and manipulated to perform duties they were never coded to do.

I only read 1/3 through the story on his site, and already it proved to be so full of intelligently designed happenstances that one really has to wonder about Miller’s motives- for they certainly aren’t scientific- but more a religious dogma- Miller didn’t present forensic evidence- He simply presented a fun bedtime story for kids- which unfortunately, gets taught to our kids in school

[grey_whiskers]

I think we happen to be talking past each other -- this remark wasn't addressed to you, but to your disputant, who was mocking Christians by claiming that they accepted the forensic standard for putting someone to death, but not for establishing the details of the clotting cascade or for agreeing that details of evolution are sufficiently established.

All I was doing was pointing out was that different disciplines have (by necessity) different evidentiary standards. I was echoing the apologist C.S. Lewis .

Cheers!

[js1138]

'Preponderance of the evidence' vs. 'beyond a reasonable doubt' vs. 'QED'

My thinking is that when the best qualified of the evolution critics -- the ones who get called to testify in court -- accept common descent and a multi-billion year old earth, that those two issues are settled.

And when you get behind all the techno-babble on these threads, those are the two issues that generate the most heat. All the arguments about irreducible complexity are just noise. We can never know if a specific mutation was "natural" or the result of intervention. We can, however, test the limits of theories of change, and that is exactly what evolutionary biologists do.

[CottShop]

Sorry Grey- I thought you were infering ID had two goals for forensics that only fit when we want htem to- I misread the intent of your post I’m afraid. You speak poetically, and it was a bit hard to decifer what you were alluding to.

Just so others are know htough, ID is a strict forensic sceince- it follows the evidence, and infers both that nature in a darwinistic RM+NS process is incapable of the ID and IC seen in life, and that an intelligence is needed- but strict ID doesn’t posit who or what the intelligence might be- Some ID’ists even htink that nature is still capable of the intelligence, but they are welcome to hteir mistaken belief beyond hte forensic science :)

I was thinking about Miller’s argument that blood clotting macroevolved, and his whole arguement is akin to looking at a ceuarberator in a car, and a fuel injection system in another vehicle, and claiming that the fuel injection system isn’t irreducibly complex because a ‘simpler version’ of gasoline injection is known to exist in the form of earlier carbeurators, and htey lack key components that fuel injeciton systems have, and these simpler carbeurators ‘work just fine without those key components’, and that, given enough time, and hte forces of nature, and IF certain circumstances happened just right, and in certain sequences, until the ‘modified carbeurator parts’ were all realigned just so, then the more complex fuel injection system ‘could have evolved’, and htereofre, the fuel injection system can’t be concidered irreducibly complex.

Of course is obvious htough that it would take a mechanic/machinist to remodel all the parts of hte carbeurator, Reshaping them, transforming them into parts necessary for fuel injection, and assemble them and fit htem all together, tweak them until the newly fomed fuel injection system works as it’s supposed to, and Miller’s ‘explanation’ for how more complex blood clotting ‘could evovle’ is nothign short of what a mechanic would have to do in order to create a fuel injeciton system out of hte raw materials used in a carbeurator.

Basically, Miller discovered the process by which God created the IC in blood clotting, and using God’s model, he deconstructed the model, then basically made nature bow to his criteria for shaping, transforming, and modeling cells in a directed, controlled, protected, and disciplined manner in his examples, and hten states “See? It ‘could happen’, therefore complex blood clotting can’t be irreducibly complex because ismpelr versions exist without key components in complex clottign systems. (The problem is that nature would have to act according to Miller in an intelligently designed manner for everythign to happen ‘just so’ so as higher complexity blood clotting coudl take place, in a supposedly ‘purely natural fashion’)

God was not above using the laws of nature to create- however, a close forensic examination of hte methods used during creation show that He made nature conform to His will in very specificly directed manner in order to accomplish the end goal- Irreducible complexities. Poinying to simpler homologicly similar systems and claiming that these simpler version ‘could evolve’ IF certian natural laws are controlled in a directed manner is an absurd argument that only goes to defeat the argument by showing that ID was behind the manipulation of nature to create both systems- including IC in vertebrate clotting systems which is unique and different than jawles fish clotting system altogether.

[CottShop]

[[My thinking is that when the best qualified of the evolution critics — the ones who get called to testify in court — accept common descent and a multi-billion year old earth, that those two issues are settled.]]

Talk about only seeign what you want to- Gee wiz-

“Settled”? Have they shown evidence to support their beleif and actually ‘settle’ the issue? No! They have not, but their beleif is enough for you to concider the issue ‘Settled’?

[[And when you get behind all the techno-babble on these threads, those are the two issues that generate the most heat.]]

Babble huh? Why is that? Because it doesn’t conform to your beleif in macroevolution?

[[All the arguments about irreducible complexity are just noise.]]

Yup- just ‘noise’ sure it is- this is a dismissive wave of hte hand because hte evidneces supporting ID/IC undermine the position of common descent, so it’s best to just ingore the evidneces and label it ‘noise’ and claim that because Behe beleives in common descent, then it’s a ‘settled matter’.

[[We can never know if a specific mutation was “natural” or the result of intervention.]]

We most certainly can determine that- Beyond a reasonable doubt- and that is precisely what ID does- it presents enough evidence to make hte case beyond a reasonable doubt- those hwo wish to ignore the evidneces against nautral explanations, and for ID intervention can do so if htey so choose, but they are not free to make hte claim that we can ‘never know’ without havign hte obvious pointed out to them in return- YES we can, and running away fro mthe evidences isn’t exactly a good tactic for htose that oppose ID. Appealing to natural forces that simply defy natural laws, biological, chemical and mathematical laws isn’t a very good tactic either- it’s a losing proposition, and it doesn’t strengthen your position to keep implying that those hwo present the evidneces that both refute nature’s involvement, and show evidences for ID that present a case beyond a reasonable doubt, doesn’t bolster your position either- Now, I know you in particular aren’t guilty of this all the time, but some on here certainly are- calling Creation science and ID science ‘psuedo-science’, and ‘anti-science’ continuously, all while ignoring hte evidences brought forth isn’t a very mature or intellectually honest defense of macroevolution. You for htem ost part have been civil- dismissive, but civil- others though just can’t seem to get past their bias and petty pat answers for everything.

[[We can, however, test the limits of theories of change, and that is exactly what evolutionary biologists do.]]

They sure do, but hwat they also do is go WAY beyond those limits, and try to hook their hypothesis to hte shooting star of chance- which is fine- regarless of how improbalbe or downright impossible, I understand why they latch onto chance, but to turn around and accuse ID of being ‘nothign but a religious apologetics practice’ is quite frankly blatantly hypocritical, demeaning, and frankly detached from the reality of the issues. It’s an elitist and snobbish example of those that think their manure don’t stink looking down hteir noses at those that would dare question their religious beleif in common descent, and not accept it just because a ‘consensus’ beleives the way they do. I’ve looked at hte evidneces CAREFULLY, and htem ore I look, them ore it becoems apparent that we have been bald-faced lied to, and hten, we are the ones that get attacked when we bring evidneces that show we are being lied to, and htat expose htose lies, and expose hte lack of evidence that we’re told amounts to mountains but hwich is really not even a bump and by necesssity, includes assumptions that defy biology, natural, mathematical, and chemical laws.

Ugggh- Not gettign into this-

[js1138]

I guess the glove don’t fit, so you must acquit.

[CottShop]

[[I guess the glove don’t fit, so you must acquit.]]

Excellent rebuttal to everythign proposed- I guess this is what defense for macroevolution has devolved into? Dismissing everythign that coutners macroevolution with a snarky comment? And we’re the ones accused of ‘psuedoscience’? Incredible!

[js1138]

I guess this is what defense for macroevolution has devolved into?

Actually not. there are tens of thousands of qualified people researching every nook and cranny of evolutionary theory, each looking for some unexpected feature or phenomenon by which to make a reputation.

On the other side of the aisle we have ID research which seems not to have published anything since 2005.

At least their forum is active.

[js1138]

this remark wasn't addressed to you, but to your disputant, who was mocking Christians

Didn't your momma teach you that lying is a sin?

If you think that by mocking hypocrites I am mocking Christians, you must have a pretty low opinion of Christians.

[js1138]

Here's the offending passage:

I find it odd that conservatives find the methods of forensic science adequately trustworthy to convict and execute criminals, but doubt it when "the glove don't fit" their religious beliefs.

I should have said "some conservatives."

I am mocking those who accept forensic science when it is convenient and deny it when it is inconvenient.

There is no virtue in accepting DNA evidence when a person's life is on the line and saying it's all a matter of interpretation when the debate is academic.

[CottShop]

=[[On the other side of the aisle we have ID research which seems not to have published anything since 2005.]]

Good golly! You mean ID scientists who are shunned ridiculed, ostracised, belittled, maligned and subjectively dismissed out of hand aren’t published more often? Gosh- I can’t understand it- After all, it’s not liek when you do a search for ID reports that htere aren’t 1000’s and 1000’s of websites in hte throes of excstacy whenever ID gets ridiculed or denied something- Bais? Oh heck no- they aint no bias out htere-

What another brilliant hand waving defense of Macroevolution

[js1138]

Good golly! You mean ID scientists who are shunned ridiculed, ostracised, belittled, maligned and subjectively dismissed out of hand aren’t published more often? Gosh- I can’t understand it-

Are you suggesting they are shunned at their own websites? They build websites, solicit manuscripts, and then malign the people who submit articles?

[CottShop]

You know what I’m talking about JS- and it isn’t on their own websites- you also know that htere have been articles posted to peer reviews- As well, you also know that peer review isn’t the onus upon which science rests-, and you also know that peer reviewed articles of ID and young earth have been posted and have stood now for decades- if you don;t then you haven’t researched the issue very well- not goign to get into an irrelevent pissing match comparing the size of any sides evidneces when you know full well a great many important discoveries were NEVER peer reviewed, nor falsified, nor predicted. If you want to discuss the central issues we’ve been discussing in this thread- fine- but not going to get sucked into diversionary rabbit trails that do nothign but try to take the emphasis off the evidneces, and into arguments about who has more or bigger scientific bicepts when the fact is that these type arguments don’t amount to a pisshole in the snow anywasys

[tpanther]

Actually it would be much harder to find one of your posts where you haven’t.

You’ve consistently defended the indefensable NEA, and godless liberalism to the point anytime your cult is challenged you respond with nonsense like “that’s not science or you’re injecting religion into the science class”.

Get a clue.

[tpanther]

I already told you scientists see the data and interpret the empirical evidence subjectively...much of science IS opinion.

Some astronomers have the opinion that Pluto is still a planet and didn’t need re-classifying, some doctors think drug A is better than drug B for hypertension and vice versa.

Ummm read again, there’s an indictment there against evolution, ignoring it doesn’t make it go away either.

Same for these observations:

---

Dissenting Scientist Ralph Seelke Discusses His Doubts About Darwin

In this interview, Dr. Ralph Seelke shares about his current evolution research, and why he is skeptical of Darwinian evolution.

Ralph Seelke received his Ph.D. in Microbiology from the University of Minnesota and the Mayo Graduate School of Medicine in 1981, was a postdoctoral researcher at the Mayo Clinic until 1983, and has been an Associate Professor or Professor in the Department of Biology and Earth Sciences at the University of Wisconsin-Superior since 1989. An authority on evolution’s capabilities and limitations in producing new functions in bacteria, Prof. Seelke recently co-authored the science textbook “Explore Evolution: The Case For and Against Neo-Darwinism.”

---

Professor Colin Reeves, Coventry University

Darwinism was an interesting idea in the 19th century, when handwaving explanations gave a plausible, if not properly scientific, framework into which we could fit biological facts. However, what we have learned since the days of Darwin throws doubt on natural selection’s ability to create complex biological systems - and we still have little more than handwaving as an argument in its favour.

Professor Colin Reeves
Dept of Mathematical Sciences
Coventry University

---

Chris Williams, Ph.D., Biochemistry Ohio State University

As a biochemist and software developer who works in genetic and metabolic screening, I am continually amazed by the incredible complexity of life. For example, each of us has a vast ‘computer program’ of six billion DNA bases in every cell that guided our development from a fertilized egg, specifies how to make more than 200 tissue types, and ties all this together in numerous highly functional organ systems. Few people outside of genetics or biochemistry realize that evolutionists still can provide no substantive details at all about the origin of life, and particularly the origin of genetic information in the first self-replicating organism. What genes did it require – or did it even have genes? How much DNA and RNA did it have – or did it even have nucleic acids? How did huge information-rich molecules arise before natural selection? Exactly how did the genetic code linking nucleic acids to amino acid sequence originate? Clearly the origin of life – the foundation of evolution - is still virtually all speculation, and little if no fact.

---

“Darwinian evolutionary theory was my field of specialization in biology. Among other things, I wrote a textbook on the subject thirty years ago. Meanwhile, however I have become an apostate from Darwinian theory and have described it as part of modernism’s origination myth. Consequently, I certainly agree that biology students at least should have the opportunity to learn about the flaws and limits of Darwin’s theory while they are learning about the theory’s strongest claims.”

Dr. Stanley Salthe, Professor Emeritus, Brooklyn College of the City University of New York

[tacticalogic]

You had your chance, and wouldn’t take it. I guess the only thing left is to hope I catch my death of cold from damp socks.

[tpanther]

You fool no one, except perhaps yourself.