It's Offical: On Tuesday,Ohio Board of Education expected to put "doubt" in evolution

The Cincinnati Enquirer ^ | Sunday, March 7, 2004 | Jennifer Mrozowski

[Right Wing Professor]

The cornea, the rod, the pupil, the iris... none of which serve any other function. And if any of them were missing, you couldn't see. Please, since it's so simple, explain to me how they all evolved.

First off, you're wrong. You can see quite well without rods; you'd just be night-blind.

Eyes undoubtedly evolved from a photosensitive patch of tissue which could sense light and darkness. By constricting the aperture in front of the patch of tissue, the organism acquired some directionality in photosensing.Mutations affecting the shape and transparency of the protective layer in front of the tissue eventually led to primitive imaging capabilities, which as they became more acute gave a selective advantage.

The eye is a particularly bad example of IC; clearly just being able to tell light from darkness is an advantage, and all you need for that is a primitive retina, some epidermal tissue to protect it, and a couple of nerves to transmit the information. Actually, as long as you can use a hormone like melatonin, you don't even need the nerve. And we know organisms with capabilities over the whole range from photosensing to directional photosensing to poor imaging to good imaging.

Here's a link with references

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html

[Right Wing Professor]

It is my contention that the purposeful exclusion of the creation argument (which is inherent in the Judeo-Christian ethic) in scientific texts abridges the rights of those who adhere to the creation ethic.

Creation isn't an ethic. As far as I know, Judaism does not hold that Genesis needs to be read literally, and most Christian sects do not hold that either. So for 'Judeo-Christian' you should substitute 'a few sects of Protestantism'.

[Right Wing Professor]

It can make predictions; that the genome should be laid out according to some basic order and with some reasonable degree of efficiency; that it not contain parasitic or useless elements; that unrelated organisms which fill similar niches should make use of common design elements. Perfectly good predictions, which fail spectacularly.

I think we're unfair to ID to say it isn't scientific. It is entirely scientific, and demonstrably false.

[rdb3]

Creation isn't an ethic. As far as I know, Judaism does not hold that Genesis needs to be read literally, and most Christian sects do not hold that either. So for 'Judeo-Christian' you should substitute 'a few sects of Protestantism'.

Amusing.

Show 'em my motto!

[js1138]

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1200/4_158/64057274/p1/article.jhtml

http://www.appliedbiosystems.com/biobeat/colorblind/

[Right Wing Professor]

"Matter is all that exists" isn't a presumption of naturalism. Try again.

[rdb3]

Nor do I say that evolution shouldn't be taught. But for truth's sake, why must the educational establishment suppress the free discussion of any other beliefs besides Darwin's?

Because their fallback position is science. It is their dogma which they hold fast to as ardently as any man in his faith.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Show 'em my motto!

[Right Wing Professor]

In the future, every male will have two phalluses like me

You're claiming his argument is a phallusy?

[whattajoke]

Aren't you allowing your science to be skewed by the presumption of naturalism?

Is this a trick question? Not "my" science, but everyone's science, yes, as long as you define "naturalism" correctly. Supernaturalism is, by definition, outside the realm of science.

“Matter is all that exists” is a faulty premise to begin with, and yet all of evolutionary science predicated upon a bias toward that assumption.

as far as the biological study of allele frequencies changing over time is concerned, matter is all that exists.

Love, wisdom, and goodness exist, do they not? Yet you can't show me any physical matter that embodies these entities.

I'm not quite sure how this relates to a change in allele frequencies over time. Your proposed touchy-feely "science" is cute, but it has no place in academia.

Isn't “science” arrived at by observing evidence and drawing conclusions?

Yes. Isn't creationism arrived at by drawing conclusions and then looking for (still not found) evidence?

I look at the same evidence you do; I just interpret it through the lens of faith in a living, invisible God whose work we are...whether pointy-headed intellectuals care to admit that or not!

Thank you for answering my question directly above.

[Modernman]

As a former Michigander and proud Wolverine (Class of '97), I have to say that this is about what I expect from Ohioans.

[Modernman]

Here's a thought. Couldn't the denial of creationist teaching in science be in violation of the XIV Amendment? If so, shouldn't that be Ohio's argument here?

Okay, but that means everyone gets equal time in the classroom to teach their pet creation myth. I believe that the universe was created last Thursday. I demand equal time to present my views, or my civil rights will be violated.

[longshadow]

...every male will have two phalluses like me....

Not to nit-pick or anything, but shouldn't the plural be "phallii"?

[rdb3]

Okay, but that means everyone gets equal time in the classroom to teach their pet creation myth.

Nothing further.

Show 'em my motto!

[general_re]

It's a phallacious good time, that post...

[Modernman]

You still haven't addressed my point. If creationism is to be allowed in classrooms, which brand(s) of creationism will be allowed?

[rdb3]

You still haven't addressed my point.

And I won't due to your mocking.

Nothing further.

Show 'em my motto!

[general_re]

You're just jealous because you're an evolutionary dead-end. In the future, the language will evolve to include the term "phallix", plural "phallices".

[Modernman]

And I won't due to your mocking.

Disagreement is not mocking. You've claimed that not allowing the teaching of creation myths (and the term "creation myth" is not mocking, it is a name given to any supernatural story dealing with creation) would violate constitutional rights. So, are you saying that only the Christian creation myth should be taught?

[PatrickHenry]

Not to nit-pick or anything, but shouldn't the plural be "phallii"?

Only one "i" at the end, probably. But in the case of someone with two of them, all bets are off.