Comments for They’re ba-ack! Creationists launch new attack on science education at http://www.theind.com , comment 1 to 39 out of 20 comments http://www.theind.com Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:32:56 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8495-theyre-ba-ack-creationists-launch-new-attack-on-public-edu#comment-19065 I just want to say that I am proud of the majority of commenter's here. Its refreshing to see reason and logic on display, which is a lot more than can be said regarding the comments on most of the stories posted locally. - B. Vidrine Mon, 27 Jun 2011 17:01:55 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8495-theyre-ba-ack-creationists-launch-new-attack-on-public-edu#comment-18863 Irreducibly Complex wrote, "The amino acids that make up the DNA strands are all the "L" version, not a mixture of the possible "D" and "L" forms...how did that happen randomly?" Here is an excellent example of why the entire creationist nonsense should be discarded. First, there are no amino acids in DNA. Second, the "handedness," properly called "Chirality," of amino acids is not really an absolute rule. Next time a creationist claims to be an "expert" and that amino acid chirality "proves" something supernatural, you can gob-smack-em. The protein is called Gramicidin A and it has 8 L-amino acids, 6 D-amino acids, and one glycine which is an amino acid that is neither L- or D- in its structure. I have found that even many biologists will bet an "adult beverage" that all proteins are exclusive L- amino acids. In addition, nearly every living critter on Earth today uses some non-chiral amino acids. Even us humans. So "Irreducibly Complex," you might, or might not be a religious lunatic. You are definately ignorant about biology. - Dr. Gary Hurd Sat, 18 Jun 2011 01:28:27 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8495-theyre-ba-ack-creationists-launch-new-attack-on-public-edu#comment-18861 My children go to s creationist school in Louisiana and we don't believe in creationism. Schools suck here and aside from the crazy religion, the rest of the education is decent. Every time they teach creationism, it reaffirms to my teens that evolution is the better theory. The creationist theory is honestly insane. - Mamabear Fri, 17 Jun 2011 23:39:40 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8495-theyre-ba-ack-creationists-launch-new-attack-on-public-edu#comment-18852 Using statistical probability, it is impossible for the organization of the cellular structure of a single cell to randomly and selectively and naturally form to produce a living cell. The amino acids that make up the DNA strands are all the "L" version, not a mixture of the possible "D" and "L" forms...how did that happen randomly?? God is involved, and you folks are too arrogant and afraid to consider that you may be accountable to your creator. Who's being the bigger religious lunatic? Belief in God doesn't automatically mean someone stops thinking and only spouts scripture. Though it seems that some of you secular humanists are spouting a lot about nothing, and must use expletives to express yourselves. - Irreducibly Complex Fri, 17 Jun 2011 20:53:30 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8495-theyre-ba-ack-creationists-launch-new-attack-on-public-edu#comment-18828 Just Askin' The more substantive reason to not allow creationism to be taught in public schools is that it violates the American Constitution. Why did the Constitution forbid the government from forcing religion on the citizens? And, why should science teachers in public schools not be allowed to expose creationism as the fraud it is? Both answers are behind the reason for the First Amendment. There is also the practical feature that there is too little time to work through the standard high school biology textbook as it stands. To waste time with refuting creatocrap is to deny time for more substantive work. - Dr. Gary Hurd Fri, 17 Jun 2011 01:41:16 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8495-theyre-ba-ack-creationists-launch-new-attack-on-public-edu#comment-18815 "What are you guys so afraid of? " Ignorance. - ragin_cajun Thu, 16 Jun 2011 20:28:03 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8495-theyre-ba-ack-creationists-launch-new-attack-on-public-edu#comment-18806 If Creationism is so demonstrably false, and the theory of evolution so superior, what does an evolutionist have to fear from creationism being offered as a competing idea? Seems that the supporters of evolution do not have much confidence that their dogma, errrr, theory can prevail should their be a free exchange of ideas.... What are you guys so afraid of? - Just Askin' Thu, 16 Jun 2011 17:27:20 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8495-theyre-ba-ack-creationists-launch-new-attack-on-public-edu#comment-18801 I Agree that teaching creationism in science classrooms is ridiculous. But, judging from the complete confusion exhibited here about proof, evidence, belief, informed opinion, etc....I think that this entire debate should be taught in high school philosophy classes in the hopes that the bulk of our citizenry can learn to think clearly and critically. - ragin_cajun Thu, 16 Jun 2011 15:14:30 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8495-theyre-ba-ack-creationists-launch-new-attack-on-public-edu#comment-18796 Good obesrvations, Larry. - Dr. Gary Hurd Thu, 16 Jun 2011 14:08:33 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8495-theyre-ba-ack-creationists-launch-new-attack-on-public-edu#comment-18771 If Creationism was ever found to be a better explanation for the workings of biology than Natural Selection, it wouldn't need to be inserted into classrooms via legislation. Scientists WANT to use the best explanations. Unfortunately for believers, it simply isn't a very good hypothesis. Its primary claims prevent scientists from fully understanding their observations of nature. For example, let's say a biologist is attempting understand the odd placement of the Larygeal nerve. This nerve starts at the bottom of the brain, travels down the neck and under the aorta, located in the chest, and back up the neck to connect to the larynx, not too far from where it began. This is even true for the giraffe, making for an extremely long and inefficient design. According to Creationism, this nerve was there from the beginning by purposeful design. Since God stubbornly refuses to call the biologist back to help him understand exactly why he placed the nerve in such an awkward position, the investigation must stop at simple observation. HOWEVER, according to evolution, species change into radically different shapes over time. By looking further and further back in to the fossil record we see that there were periods of time, long before humans and giraffes existed, when the most complex creatures on the planet were fish. Now a fish's aorta and heart are located much closer to its head, resulting in a Larygeal nerve that is straight. Over time, a biologist could now infer, as species grew longer and necks began to move the brain away from the chest, the nerve could not simply reroute itself. Instead it was forced to grow longer and longer over time resulting in the strange, roundabout layout we see in modern animals. As evolutionary biologist and Russian Orthodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution." - Larry H. Christ Wed, 15 Jun 2011 21:40:18 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8495-theyre-ba-ack-creationists-launch-new-attack-on-public-edu#comment-18767 NO, NO MORE GRANDSTANDING WITH RELIGIOUS UNDERTONES - NO TEN COMMANDMENTS MONUMENT ON PUBLIC GROUNDS. People, follow the ten commandments; having them posted on grounds or in courthouses will not accomplish anything if you're not following them or teaching them to your children. First, set the example for your kids & then teach them to your kids and you will NOT need to pacify yourself by having monuments to them. You cannot force people to follow them by having them standing on a rock. - Morrow Wed, 15 Jun 2011 21:08:49 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8495-theyre-ba-ack-creationists-launch-new-attack-on-public-edu#comment-18766 Just watch how those lilly-livered ho's in the state legislature sign on with this. I sure feel sorry for them that they do not have the moral fortitude to keep religion in religion classes or church and science in the classroom. They remind me of the money changers.... - Morrow Wed, 15 Jun 2011 20:59:10 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8495-theyre-ba-ack-creationists-launch-new-attack-on-public-edu#comment-18759 JAT and Bob D. finally converge on what they are really after; the imposition of fundamentalist Christian religious training by the government in public schools. America’s founders knew what a religious totalitarian state was like, and they knew the power the State could use to control the population if they were allowed to claim that God ordained their rules and powers. Sadly, the far-right seems determined to undermine, and destroy the Nation they claim to love, and so many patriots died to create. As Sinclair Lewis wrote, “When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” It is up to the real patriots to stop them before they can again enslave us. - Dr. Gary Hurd Wed, 15 Jun 2011 17:12:08 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8495-theyre-ba-ack-creationists-launch-new-attack-on-public-edu#comment-18757 JAT shows that they have no understanding at all of the educational trends in American public schools for the last three decades (the period my wife and I have been teachers). JAT wrote, “We continue to drop the standards instead of raising them to push our kids.” Nothing could be farther from the truth. We have in fact raised criteria, and loaded the curriculum. Second graders in California (and most other states) are learning algebra today when 30 years ago it was just long division and fractions. The “pass” criteria for the National Assessment of Educational Achievement was just arbitrarily shifted from 50/50 to 66/33 automatically dropping ~17 percent of student scores into the “failure” range. The real truth is that selling standardized tests is annually a multibillion dollar drain on public education. - Dr. Gary Hurd Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:26:14 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8495-theyre-ba-ack-creationists-launch-new-attack-on-public-edu#comment-18755 JAT makes some slightly different errors. They began with the claim that “new archaeological (sic) digs prove the bible correct.” I doubt that JAT reads archaeological journals, but I’ll make a few suggestions. (As a personal note, I am a professional archaeologist among other things). Here is a brief, easy to read news article; Andrew Lawler, “American Schools Of Oriental Research Annual Meeting: A Change of Biblical Proportions Strikes Mideast Archaeology” (Science 10 December 2010: Vol. 330 no. 6010 pp. 1472-1473). Basically, there has been precious little science in Biblical Archaeology since the first Christian missionary excavations in the 1800s. This has changed, beginning with the first ever systematic archaeological surveys conducted in post-1967 war Israel. For two book length reviews, a “prolegomenon” of sorts, see; Dever, William 2001 “What Did the Biblical Writers Know & When Did They Know IT?: What Archaeology can tell us about the reality of ancient Israel” Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company Finkelstein, Israel, Neil Silberman 2001 “The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts” New York: The Free Press These men have quite different ideas of how the Hebrew Bible, the “Old” Testament, can be employed in archaeological understanding, and historical reconstruction of the Ancient Mideast. Many of the place names from the Bible and been located archaeologically, and this is the most common “proof” of the Bible offered by creationists. The Harry Potter books mention many real places, such as London. Finding London on a map does not “prove” that Harry Potter was a real boy wizard. What is archaeologically certain is that the claims that “digs prove the bible correct,” are nonsense invented to sell to the fundamentalist public. - Dr. Gary Hurd Wed, 15 Jun 2011 15:54:32 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8495-theyre-ba-ack-creationists-launch-new-attack-on-public-edu#comment-18754 Put "creationism" in theology or sociology classes. Not science. I don't want my kids learning about a god, but I do want them to know about people who buy into things like that. It's important for them to know whom they can exploit, etc. - Registered names aren't working for me, IND Wed, 15 Jun 2011 14:56:44 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8495-theyre-ba-ack-creationists-launch-new-attack-on-public-edu#comment-18752 It is interesting to see the sides on this debating PAST each other... Often, people of faith think if they can discredit Darwin as a person or his work, they can undermine evolution. But the mindset of science doesn't care about that... it just follows the facts. - Now Gone Wed, 15 Jun 2011 14:36:36 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8495-theyre-ba-ack-creationists-launch-new-attack-on-public-edu#comment-18748 Bob D.’s next error was, “Even Darwin in later lifer (sic) stated that without such evidence his theory had no basis.” This is a mishmash of two creationist claims. One is based on Darwin’s statement in “The Origin of Species,” Chapter VI, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” And the second “in later life” part is the echo of the “Lady Hope” fraud. Lady Hope was a British evangelist who falsely claimed, in great detail, how she attended Darwin on his deathbed in 1882, and led him to renounce science, and reconverted him to Christianity. This was a lie, as attested by Darwin’s wife Emma at the time, and later by his daughter Henrietta in 1922. The fact is even if Darwin had come to doubt his work, it would not alter the validity of evolutionary theory in any way. The modern science of biology which Darwin contributed so much to is independently verified by observation and experiment, and not by personalities. - Dr. Gary Hurd Wed, 15 Jun 2011 14:18:07 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8495-theyre-ba-ack-creationists-launch-new-attack-on-public-edu#comment-18747 Bob D. went on to deny that there is fossils evidence for speciation, particularly what is called “gradualism.” Paleontologist Steven Gould made a career for himself making the similar claim. Gould was not rejecting evolution, but arguing that the rate of evolutionary change was not constant. Darwin had already anticipated this, and had not himself thought that the rate of would be constant. However, we do indeed have long sequences which do show gradual transitions in morphology from one species into others. But these are best preserved in the microscopic marine organisms called foramifera, and rarely excite the public. Similarly, we have long series of aquatic snails which show centuries of tiny variations which accumulated to form new species. But, fossils are a poor substitute for directly observed living species that have undergone evolutionary transitions to new species. I have collected a list of dozens of examples from the scientific literature and posted them to “Emergence of New Species” at http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2009/03/emergence-of-new-species.html - Dr. Gary Hurd Wed, 15 Jun 2011 13:58:02 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8495-theyre-ba-ack-creationists-launch-new-attack-on-public-edu#comment-18745 In the comments to Mr. Pierce's news item, several creationists have made the same old errors of fact, and reasoning that were popularly refuted decades ago. Taking Bob D. as a fine example of the breed, he began with an assertion as if it were fact, and then confused the meaning of “theory” with “just a guess.” Darwin’s original contributions to evolutionary theory were 1) common descent, and 2) natural selection. He later added entire books adding the concepts of 3) co-evolution (1862 fertilization of orchids by insects), and 4) behavioral selection (1871 “The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex”). In each of these contributions Darwin has been demonstrated by over a century of experiment and observation to have been correct. Darwin’s ideas about the specific mechanics of heredity were entirely wrong which was not entirely surprising as he (like most of his contemporaries) missed the significance of Gregor Mendel’s research on plant genetics. - Dr. Gary Hurd Wed, 15 Jun 2011 13:24:57 +0100