“Evolution is like a whining kid, overprotective of what it thinks it knows.”

Science is what it is – the best way of understanding reality. Religion thinks it knows something and it is simply incorrect – religion has no way of knowing anything – it’s all just opinions.

“If I get a bunch of people in the room and brainwash them …”

Your characterization of biological research scientists is quite ignorant. Who will make next year’s flu vaccine?

“Thanks for the time you spent and for showing us just how you think.”

You’re welcome. You should try talking to a real scientist some day.

“I hope you someday are open minded enough to see that your “truth” is not all it claims to be.”

Hilarious. Your opinion is ridiculous.

The ruling of the judge was against the ruling of the Dover School board. Ruling perhaps is the word that threw you off.

You’re right– Carbon 14. Forgive me for not looking things up when trying to make a philosophical point. And you’re right– the half life of Carbon-14 is much too short for the calculations that Scientists use. Funny that it was “the dating mechanism” for so long.

Obviously you don’t understand logic, jumping to conclusions, and how time works. When I say a test resulted in a given figure, that’s a fact. When I make a conclusion based on the fact that’s an interpretation. The rock may read 32,000 years old on any one test. It might read 31,000 on a different test. And each of these tests are based on a uniformity principle that we know for a fact that the rock decayed at a given rate over time without question.

The only problem is that we’re making the assumption that it did, since we don’t even have good records for weather, let alone rock decay, back a few hundred years. We also don’t know the condition of the Earth when it came into existence, or what level of decay it may have had then.

There are too many unknowns going back into the past to be certain about anything, so there is an element of faith in play. And that’s just the problem here. Scientists have a degree of faith in their models and in uniformity that is not warranted given the documentary evidence available. And yet they cling to that faith as truth for whatever reason they desire. And have to have a monopoly of their own opinion in the classrooms.

If it were the other way around, you’d want the facts out just the same. It’s simply because of your current monopoly and refusal to see anything other than your worldview.

And it must be so frustrating from your point of view. I mean, not only do you have the pesky Creationists building their museum with their own money (you thought that you had that market cornered since you used government and the people’s money to build something the people don’t agree with), and then the irritating Intelligent Design people that took God out so there could be the discussion about a Designer without talking about God, but you constantly get egg all over your face each and every day.

I mean, Haekel’s embryos? The Java Man? Piltdown Man? Why is it that every claim at a missing link that makes front page news follows up with disclaimer buried in the same magazine a few weeks later saying how such and such discovery that was meant to “prove Evolution once and for all” was either a fraud or not what it claimed to be.

And then you can’t even get your story straight on whether there was a catastrophe or not– I mean, everything was the same, and then there were asteroids that did something to the earth. There can be a global flood on Mars, but not on Earth. I mean, the contortions you have to go through.

And then there’s the eye, bombardier beetle, and other things that are irreducibly complex, and you have to come up with contorted reasons for why things are that way.

And let’s not get into the confidence infused into scientists when they can’t accurately predict the weather, call for global warming while Alaska is experiencing the coldest summer on record, and doctors decide antibiotics aren’t so cool after all.

And then, even Newsweek can’t keep the story straight. On the topic of Food Allergies, an article referenced the design of the intestinal tract and the immune system, but if we evolved there was no design. It was random chance and natural selection that resulted in the intricate systems of the body. Someone should call them.

If anything, the whole science industry is a mess. You wonder why so many people continue to believe in Adam and Eve and that the world was created, but if you actually looked at science and it’s many retractions and the egg it wears all over it’s face (and this has been way before modern times with scientists that believed they could turn lead into gold and that the earth was flat), you wonder why we view you and laugh.

Evolution is like a whining kid, overprotective of what it thinks it knows. If Evolution is true it has nothing to fear from having its flaws exposed and alternative theories expounded on. It will stand as the most probably theory if it is such.

Continuing on– You’ve got yourself in quite a pickle with saying that a person is better than an animal. How would you come about this logically?

How about I take a stab at it? If I descended from a monkey, then I am nothing more than a “better monkey”. So at some point I was a “less-better monkey”, right?

So, what value do transitions get? I mean, some aborigines were considered less evolved– do they get less value? Would a neanderthal get less value?

Hitler thought that the most evolved race was White Caucasians with Blond Hair and Blue Eyes. If he’s right, should they get extra special treatment? Should they get deference because of their superior genes?

How about all of the high school teens that have done horrible things because they figured that we’re all just animals anyway?

Lastly, I find it amusing that you characterize those Scientists that believe in Creation as “high school teachers”. Since many of them have PhD’s or were considered the fathers of Modern Science this seems amusing at best.

And then, the part that really gave me a good laugh was when you mentioned “large number of trained biological scientists”. And their training is the exact subject. If I get a bunch of people in the room and brainwash them to think that there’s only one Computer language “C#” out there and then teach them how to use it, do you think that they will acknowledge that people can actually get things done in PHP?

Nah, they’ll be as brainwashed to think that Microsoft is the only Gospel and preach the same. Believe me, I’ve read it.

How many of your “very large number” have seen a transitional fossil, have been around long enough to verify a large degree of uniformity, or have witnessed the change from lifeless to life?

I’m guessing that that number is statistically insignificant.

Was I supposed to understand what this sentence meant? The ruling had nothing really to say about evolution – the ruling was against “intelligent design”. But a lot of “intelligent design” is “evolution is wrong, therefore intelligent design is right”. So there were some “objections” to evolution and those “objections” were found to be without any basis in fact.

“because of the refraction of the sun’s light”

Incorrect explanation.

“The date given by Carbon-16″

Oxygen is 16, 17, 18, Carbon is 12, 13, 14. The dating test is called Carbon-14. And rocks are much too old to be dated by Carbon-14.

“However, when I then say “So, this rock is 32,000 years old” I’ve crossed the line.”

What line is that? The line between a “fact” and a “scientific conclusion”? No scientist would see any “line” there. Only someone with a religious viewpoint?

“then there are interpretations of facts”

Yes. And when a thousand scientists get together and agree on such an interpretation, they call it a “scientific fact” and include it in the textbooks for high school students. Such as “moon rocks are 4 billion years old” and “evolution explains the diversity of life on this Earth”.

“you’re no better than an animal”

Now YOU have crossed the line – the line between scientific truth and trying to use that truth to influence morality. I’ll bet that if a high school teacher explicitly said “you’re no better than an animal”, he would get into big trouble.

“we expect you to behave, get good grades and contribute to society.”

Yes, we do. And if you don’t, there will likely be consequences in this life. There is no need to worry about fearing some consequences after you are dead.

So how should I have responded to:

“that you believe in a lie”

You have your opinion and I have my opinion and they certainly seem to conflict. And you certainly don’t seem to be interested in actually learning anything about evolution. So I chose to try an “argument from authority”. Such an argument is only as strong as the authority. So do you wish to place your multitude of high school teachers against my very large number of trained biological scientists for reference as better authority?

Facts do not have a bias– they are what they are. The fact is, the sky is blue because of the refraction of the sun’s light through the atmosphere. The fact is, grass is green because of chlorophyll in them which helps them to grow. The fact is that I inhale and use Oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide.

These are facts. I would go so far as to say that “The date given by Carbon-16 for this rock is 32,000 years” is a fact. However, when I then say “So, this rock is 32,000 years old” I’ve crossed the line.

Just like if you looked at my posts. A majority of my posts I write ahead of time– it’s the nature of my schedule that I cannot be online all day to write posts, so I tend to write them in bulk and schedule them. So, you’d be right if you said “This post is dated July 24, 2008″ but you’d be wrong to assume that I wrote it then– those that I wrote on that date are a few days older than that.

So, you need to get your mind wrapped around the idea that there are facts, and then there are interpretations of facts. Teaching facts should be the desire of any science teacher– or most other teachers for that matter. Teaching interpretations of the facts should either take into account those hypothesis that have not been invalidated by the facts.

Should kids decide? I can see your point– they’re hardly equipped to decide what worldview they will attach themselves to at that point. Which makes preaching evolution as gospel from the school pulpit all the worse. I mean, teaching facts, that’s great. But teaching them that they grew from a monkey with no facts to back that up– that’s just filling their minds with faith based nonsense.

“Hey, you’re no better than an animal, but we expect you to behave, get good grades and contribute to society.” Right, I can believe that one. Stick to the facts. Keep your religion to yourself.

And I’m not going to get into the illogical use of an imaginary number like “jillion” when you expect to have a rational discussion. I mean, you already said that the number of biological scientists were much less than the number of 9th grade scientist teachers– so you have to resort to an imaginary number to bolster your argument. How weak and foolish.

I mean, if you start looking at the fact that Darwin’s theory is only a few hundred years old, and that for at least 10,000 years before that every scientist believed in creation by a Deity (and looking at it through your time-line, we would be talking millions of years of scientists!). You’re vastly outnumbered.

But that’s what you get when you use such silly, flimsy reasoning.

They wanted to make students “aware of” intelligent design without “promoting” it? Well, the Federal judge saw right through that ploy!

“I’ve read that people have said that…”

Of course that’s what they “say”. But their religious motivations are obvious.

“…they want to teach the facts…”

Riiight. And who gets to decide what “facts” to teach? A Creationist Dover School Board? A Creationist Texas State Board of Education?

“…and make kids decide.”

Stupid, stupid, stupid. Even 9th grade teachers are not qualified to “decide”, much less 14-year-old students.

“It’s you that won’t allow people to say that there may be another way.”

Absolutely correct as it applies to a 9th grade public high school biology class. The “other way” is obviously religious and has nothing to do with science. That’s why a Republican judge ruled against it.

“It’s you and your friends that are afraid of open debate.”

Absolutely incorrect. But “open debate” should not take place in a 9th grade biology class. “Open debate” has been taking place for 20+ years. And all the creationists have to show for it is a Supreme Court defeat, a Federal court defeat, a $27 million Creationist “Museum” of lies, a really despicable movie, and an unconstitutional “teach the controversy” Louisiana law passed by Creationist legislators and signed by a Creationist governor.

“you’re a monopoly that will soon crumble”

LOL. Have you seen the web page that documents all of the quotations of the “demise” of evolution over the last 100+ years? Quite hilarious.

“that you believe in a lie”

Tell it to a jillion biological scientists.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (emphasis mine)

There was no act of Congress here, therefore the First Amendment doesn’t apply– regardless of the ruling or what the judge thinks. Unless you’re wanting to discuss the plain reading of the text?

Your following sentences make for amusing reading.

No, Dover’s school board did not try to promote intelligent design. They added the following to their science curriculum:

Students will be made aware of the gaps/problems in Darwin’s theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Note: Origins of life is not taught.

It manifested itself as a sticker on the front page of science textbooks that teachers refused to read. However, the plain English of this statement says that they were interested in presenting all the information, instead of just the information aligned to a particular worldview.

This is the exact opposite of what you are saying because right now the monopoly belongs to Evolution, which must be taught in schools without criticism and as fact. Which is exactly what the problem is here.

I know you’re not one to get hung up on the details– you’re pretty sloppy with them. And I’d stay out of the Constitutional realm. I mean, I don’t need a lecture on how things get to the federal court and make their way up to the Supreme Court. I mean, are you able to delineate the “tests” that determine whether or not the non-existent principle principle of the “Separation of Church and State” has been violated?

Do you know that they contradict each other and are not uniformly used?

Again with the English– man, you should read your own stuff. So far, I’ve read that people have said that they want to teach the facts and make kids decide. The only people advocating for only one position to be taught as absolute truth are you and your friends the Evolutionists. It’s you that won’t allow people to say that there may be another way. It’s you and your friends that are afraid of open debate. And it’s you and your league that are scared that if people teach that there are gaps in Evolution and that Evolutionists can interpret facts incorrectly more times than not that they might see past the smoke screen.

The reality is that Darwin came up with a theory that even he credited to a Creator in the Origin of Species that secular humanism ran with, and then decided to teach to children because it absolved them of their duty to a Creator. I can’t help that you’re a monopoly that will soon crumble, or that you believe in a lie, but I can hope to spread light on the subject.