Wednesday, April 16, 2008 | Science : Teaching Science | print version

Evolution fray attracts top scientist

by Herald Tribune

Reposted from:
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20080415/NEWS/804150543

Nobel winner battles plan to let teachers challenge Darwin's theory

By Anna Scott
Published Tuesday, April 15, 2008 at 4:30 a.m.

TALLAHASSEE — His mess of white hair rising with the wind, Nobel laureate Harold Kroto delivered what has become his standard speech on evolution:

Humans and fruit flies share the same genes.

"You may not like that but it's not my fault," Kroto, 68, said in front of the state Capitol on Monday.

"It's the way it actually is."

Florida lawmakers are frustrating the winner of the 1996 Nobel Prize for chemistry. They want to change the way evolution is taught so that teachers are allowed to challenge Darwin's theory.

It is the most absurd thing Kroto has heard since moving to Florida in 2004 to teach at Florida State University. His friends back home in England, where he was a professor in Sussex, have been sending him e-mails asking why he stays, he said.

"We're the laughingstock of the enlightened world," Kroto said.

For months, he has been writing newspaper articles explaining the basic tenets of Darwin's theory, hoping to change minds.

He sits on round-table discussions and hands out booklets on evolution from the National Academy of Sciences.

He races to the Capitol between lectures to give the fruit fly talk.

To Kroto, and mainstream scientists like him, the idea that humans evolved from the world's earliest life forms is as obvious as the laws of gravity.

"The bedrock of all biology," Kroto calls it. "It's beautiful."

But Florida lawmakers and a national movement of mostly religious-based groups believe evolution is less absolute.

State proposals this year would undo a recent decision by the state Board of Education and allow teachers to "present scientific information relevant to the full range of views on biological and chemical evolution."

Kroto and other scientists surmise such legislation would allow teachers to present as credible theories of creationism and intelligent design, basically beliefs that God or a higher being created humans.

Proponents say it allows teachers "academic freedom" to explore a theory, and that laws clearly ban the teaching of religious theories.

The proposals would also protect from punishment students who refuse to accept Darwin's evolution.

The bill's Senate sponsor, Ronda Storms, R-Valrico, says teachers and students feel too frightened to even discuss intelligent design.

Senate Majority Leader Dan Webster, R-Winter Garden, said the theory of evolution "had flaws."

Republicans have voted for the plan to the point where it will be considered by the full Senate, and has only one more committee to pass in the House.

Kroto, whose father was Jewish and fled the Nazis in Germany, said the belief in God has never made sense to him.

"I just think science is the way the universe is and that's how we figure things out," Kroto said.

He won the Nobel Prize for discovering buckminsterfullerene, a carbon molecule with a soccer ball shape that students now call "buckyballs" for short.

He fears the recent debate over evolution is a sign science is becoming irrelevant.

"As far as I'm concerned, it's an abuse of position not to teach science correctly to children," Kroto said. "Today they don't need to know how anything works. The technology is so good if something breaks they get it fixed. There's a large number of kids probably prepared to accept something without being too careful."

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 101 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #162164 by VanYoungman on April 16, 2008 at 8:58 am

Will there ever be an end?

Other Comments by VanYoungman

2. Comment #162168 by Jack Rawlinson on April 16, 2008 at 9:06 am

Harry Kroto is one of the good guys. I'm glad he's getting more directly involved in taking on the FlorID-iots.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

3. Comment #162169 by bugaboo on April 16, 2008 at 9:08 am

Three cheers for Harold Kroto! Dont let the IDiots grind you down.

Other Comments by bugaboo

4. Comment #162170 by TheSwede on April 16, 2008 at 9:11 am

I love it when scientist use the prestige gained by winning Alfred Nobel's prize to further science understanding and engage anti-science movements.

This should be done more often. So, I take my hat of for Prof. Kroto!

Other Comments by TheSwede

5. Comment #162171 by AmericanGodless on April 16, 2008 at 9:11 am

"The proposals would also protect from punishment students who refuse to accept Darwin's evolution." -- Are there really biology teachers who show the instruments of torture to the students and demand that they recant? (And they whisper, "Yet we are intelligently designed".)

"..teachers and students feel too frightened to even discuss intelligent design." -- They should just feel too embarrassed.

"Today they don't need to know how anything works. ... There's a large number of kids probably prepared to accept something without being too careful." -- And this is the real lesson, and the real danger.

Other Comments by AmericanGodless

6. Comment #162175 by black wolf on April 16, 2008 at 9:14 am

I still don't really get it. I do understand that this change is another attempt to wedge creationIDsim into science classrooms, but how can it do that? The legislation clearly speaks of scientific information, which ID and creationism are not. The only problem I see with it is that a creationist teacher may be brainwashed enought o think that his information is scientific, and that there may be no pupils in the class with alert parents to reckognize this. But shouldn't there be at least one science teacher or department head per school who can stand up and stop that?

Other Comments by black wolf

7. Comment #162177 by akado on April 16, 2008 at 9:19 am

This kind of thing just gets my blood boiling!

I am tired of this stupid debate in america.
I was annoyed while reading a book recently that because I wasn't taught about evolution very well I couldn';t fully grasp what it was saying!
I looked up injfo and found out but the point was that they withheld my education for their own beliefs against what I would have wanted and it caused an ignorance in me they just made me angry with them all!

something that was just.................ugh!
I can't stand it when people hold back teachings such as evolution or try to rule it out as just "theory".
I am getting sick of it!

When I become a fully acredited physicist I am going to try as much as I can to follow dawkins and fight back against religion and it's mental abuse on the worlds minds!

Other Comments by akado

8. Comment #162178 by PJG on April 16, 2008 at 9:21 am

I wonder if teachers who would like to teach "alternative theories" would be prepared to simplify the creation argument into one sentence...

"Human beings came into existence by magic".

That way, they could give a true account of creationists claims without mentioning God or religion and therefore they would not be violating the First Amendment.

I wonder how many teachers (or parents or politicians) would feel comfortable with this?

Other Comments by PJG

9. Comment #162181 by PJG on April 16, 2008 at 9:29 am

What this all needs is for someone who was denied an education in evolution to sue their school.

Any lawyers out there prepared to put together a case for someone like akado? There may be someone like akado who would have become a famous biologist had they been inspired by Darwin whilst at school.

Other Comments by PJG

10. Comment #162182 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 16, 2008 at 9:30 am

Kroto, whose father was Jewish and fled the Nazis in Germany, said the belief in God has never made sense to him.

Because that's the only reason someone could believe belief in God does not make sense? Loaded and unnecessary.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

11. Comment #162185 by HandyGeek on April 16, 2008 at 9:38 am

As a Florida resident, this is more embarrassing than hanging chads. :(

Other Comments by HandyGeek

12. Comment #162186 by Chris Jackson on April 16, 2008 at 9:39 am

Nice to see yet another influential figure wading into the debate. I say debate, but a conversation with an IDiot tends to run more along the lines of:

"Well, what do you think of... (insert long-debunked ignorant myth here)?"
It's a load of bollocks. Where's the evidence for your theory, by the way?
"THE BIBLE IS THE ONLY TRUTH!" (descends into dogma)

After reading this report, I'm going to give a steady "thumbs-up" to the Kroto Innovation centre every time I walk past it. I can't help thinking it won't be too long before Brown tries pulling some shit like this in the UK. Truly the end times are upon us.

Other Comments by Chris Jackson

13. Comment #162189 by Bigorra on April 16, 2008 at 9:48 am

There will always be people trying to push this ID/creationism nonsense on students, as there are always people unwilling to say the emperor has no clothes. I would like to see a greater emphasis on skepticism in all education, so that more people would be able to see through this nonsense on their own. The Discovery Institute pushed their agenda in a packet for educators, including a handpicked quote from Darwin's Origin of Species: "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question." This sounds to those versed in PC at American colleges like a perfectly reasonable statement, but what many will not realize is that it calls for "a fair result." At some point you have to come down on one side of the argument as being a better explanation of the phenomenon in question. Certainly the explanatory value of evolution is the fair result obtained when arguing ID v. Darwin.

While I am grateful for the work Harold Kroto is doing, some are only going to be swayed by hearing that he's a Nobel laureate, not because he can intelligently explain why there should be no debate in Florida or anywhere else. They may be as easily swayed back if Francis Collins comes to them the next week to say that he believes God put us here. Only by teaching children the way scientists come to their conclusions in explaining nature can we put this debate to rest. Unfortunately much of education in the United States is teaching facts, not thinking. Until more people learn to think for themselves, Kroto's maxim will have to suffice: "You may not like that but it's not my fault. It's the way it actually is."

Other Comments by Bigorra

14. Comment #162191 by Brothergerr on April 16, 2008 at 9:51 am

It's truly incredulous, it is as if we are living in the dark ages! I just hope one day people will read in their textbooks and laugh at how silly it all is, just as we look back and think: flat Earth...oh what were they thinking! How could they think the sun goes around the Earth?! etc. , one day...one day

Other Comments by Brothergerr

15. Comment #162194 by Double Bass Atheist on April 16, 2008 at 9:54 am

While obviously this is not a debate situation, we need more men like Harold Kroto who are willing to confront these people.
Most top scientists, like our own RD, usually refuse to debate fundies and for good reason... it only lends credibility to the creationist position by presenting the appearance that these two positions are equal.

The bottom line is that we need a virtual onslaught of top scientists confronting ID bullshit at every opportunity. These asinine lawmakers and school board members need to hear from SO many scientists, confronting them every day, that they get sick of listening to them.
The answer is EDUCATION. Almost all fundies believe what they do about evolution due to a lack of this.

Educate!
Educate!
Educate!

How about some of the worlds top scientists from various fields get together and make their own movie?
We'll call it "Dispelled! No Bullshit Allowed"

Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist

16. Comment #162195 by jmrunning3 on April 16, 2008 at 9:58 am

I keep seeing ID proponents state evolution "has flaws" or that there "are flaws" in evolution. Someone asked this same question on one of the Expelled threads too: Just what are these alleged flaws?

I've searched online and found a (very) few supposed flaws, but they are easily refuted and obviously flawed themselves. Is there even one serious "flaw" that can be exposed or simply not yet explained? I'm not aware of one.

Other Comments by jmrunning3

17. Comment #162196 by HourglassMemory on April 16, 2008 at 9:58 am

This whole "Just a theory" is so annoying.

When will people realise that basically everything humans know about the world is a "theory"?
That's what you get when the majority of the population doesn't think about these issues and doesn't get itself educated.

If I'm not mistaken, Dawkins' next book is going to be about this very issue and is going to be called "Only a theory".
Boy, does he know what to publish!

I hope the book in the end says something like "Got it?!"

It's such a simple idea, Evolution. It's amazing how limited the view of many people is about geological timespans and what can happen during those periods.

And the controversy....you don't have to be an expert on Evolution to see that there is no controversy.

This "Let's stay in the middle ground and teach both."
It really IS like putting flat Earth stuff in Science classes.
ID is something that takes Science where it doesn't need to go. It says there's design where there's no need to postulate that. It's unscientific. It's ignorant. It's not how science works. to postulate design is to put the cart in front of the horses. And it really is ignorant to postulate when you have a tremendous mountain, or I would say, an entire mountain range, of data that fits perfectly together.
When people say there's design, it's because they honestly, and often innocently, haven't looked at the evidence. They don't get the theory.
Ken Miller, for example, GETS the theory.
An of course, they want there to be a designer, yadda yadda yadda. I won't go there.

And the whole point of view in "Expelled" is just so ironic and you can't help but to put their talk of others, on them.

Kroto has all my support!

It's a shame so many people are innocently ignorant to the point of saying "Let's have both".
This is not a self-righteous view of the problem, it's just how it is, and people don't see it.
they want the middle ground.
I think it's alright to ask for the middle ground when there is actually something on the other side.

Other Comments by HourglassMemory

18. Comment #162198 by RSP on April 16, 2008 at 10:04 am

"He races to the Capitol between lectures to give the fruit fly talk."

It's strange, but it really is almost like the public has to be totally reeducated completely on evolution, as if they were students. I'm glad my science teacher loved science.

Other Comments by RSP

19. Comment #162200 by prettygoodformonkeys on April 16, 2008 at 10:14 am

I don't recall who it was that said:

"If you promise not to pray in my school,
I promise not to think in your church."

Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

20. Comment #162201 by PaulJ on April 16, 2008 at 10:26 am

I'd be in favour of teaching a scientific alternative to evolution theory in schools.

If there was one.

But there isn't.

Other Comments by PaulJ

21. Comment #162202 by Raiko on April 16, 2008 at 10:31 am

Like Richard, he is very blunt.

Sometimes I think such bluntness is needed, on other days I think "for now, this is not going to work on religious people".

But then, what will ever work on irrational minds?

"You may not like that but it's not my fault," Kroto, 68, said in front of the state Capitol on Monday.

"It's the way it actually is."

Maybe that is something we should make clearer because it's such a simple, important thing to understand. Once people have gotten down the utter logic of "reality is not about what I want and like, but about how things are", maybe we can continue from there.

Other Comments by Raiko

22. Comment #162203 by a tree with roots on April 16, 2008 at 10:32 am

Bravo Sir Harry!

I saw him give a talk in person a couple years ago about science education, and it was truly one of the best I've heard.

I don't blame him for being just a little bit peeved at the situation in his current home state. When it comes down to it, yeah many people do have to re-learn this stuff. Better late than never.

Other Comments by a tree with roots

23. Comment #162204 by Bigorra on April 16, 2008 at 10:35 am

A few more ideas for ways to "teach the controversy", a pro bono list created for the legislative branch of the Florida government:

1. Humans and all animals were created by an Intelligent Designer, not through the process of evolution.
2. The earth is the center of the universe, not a small outpost for life in a vast universe.
3. The earth is flat, not a roughly spherical object.
4. The sun, and every other heavenly body, revolves around the earth. The earth does not revolve around any other object but remains stationary.
5. All diseases are caused by infestations of demonic spirits, or "djinns," not because of genes, bacteria or viruses.
6. Witchcraft is a method by which the unscrupulous may alter reality to suit their own purposes, and people are not powerless to change reality by indirect means.
7. The future may be perceived through revelations received from sources outside the fabric of reality by means of extrasensory perception, not an something entirely dependent on chance factors.
8. Homosexuality is purely a personal choice having no basis in biology, not a result of genetic predisposition or other naturally occurring, unchosen factors.
9. Certain gifted individuals can speak to the dead through automatic writing and direct communication, and death is not an impediment to continuing communications with people who have passed.
10. Astrology is a means by which absolute facts about personality and the future may accurately be ascertained, not a vague, unsupportable, arbitrary endeavor.

Unless these ideas are taught to our children, they will think that scientific endeavor is the only way to approach the truth in any argument about the nature of reality. I am sure that your friends at the Discovery Institute can polish the wording to support these scientifically valid ideas.

Teach the controversy, Florida!

Other Comments by Bigorra

24. Comment #162205 by Vaal on April 16, 2008 at 10:35 am

And this is from Florida, the state where Nasa has Cape Kennedy based? I thought that this would have been one of the more enlightened of the US states!

Other Comments by Vaal

25. Comment #162208 by JimmyL on April 16, 2008 at 10:49 am

So, the 1996 winner of the Nobel prize in chemistry. The discoverer of bucky balls, hardly an insignificant discovery, says about evolution:
"The bedrock of all biology," Kroto calls it. "It's beautiful."

While senate Majority Leader Dan Webster, R-Winter Garden, said the theory of evolution "had flaws."

I find that a humourous juxtaposition of opinions.

Dan Webster's logic escapes me and I find this statement bizarre at best. HAD flaws? Is it okay now or does it still have flaws. I think that every time I hear someone claim that evolution has flaws I will ask them to tell me which scientific theory is flawless perfection.

Other Comments by JimmyL

26. Comment #162211 by jimbob on April 16, 2008 at 10:59 am

Ah Florida--the future Venice of the USA if the science on global warming is correct. ;-)

Other Comments by jimbob

27. Comment #162214 by kaiserkriss on April 16, 2008 at 11:11 am

I think Prof. Kroto is going about this the wrong way.

A movement should be started demanding equal time in schools teaching that the earth is flat, that the sun revolves around the earth and similar nonsense, even to the ID crowd. Maybe then the public at large will start some critical thinking about issues they currently know very little about. jcw

EDIT : I just noticed BIGORRA has beaten me to the punch...

Other Comments by kaiserkriss

28. Comment #162215 by black wolf on April 16, 2008 at 11:24 am

While senate Majority Leader Dan Webster, R-Winter Garden, said the theory of evolution "had flaws."

I we showed a picture of a car to some person of the 18th century, that person would assuredly also say the car had flaws. 'The wheels are too small and too soft, it's got no horses and you need to stoop to get in.' I'm sure Mr. Webster would not respect that person's opinion of cars much, so why should we respect any opinion on science of people like him who are scores of decades behind the current scientific knowledge?

Other Comments by black wolf

29. Comment #162217 by Enlightenme.. on April 16, 2008 at 11:26 am

I would say we share the same four-letter alphabet as fruit flies and potatoes.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

30. Comment #162218 by IanG on April 16, 2008 at 11:27 am

I must say that I'm beginning to wonder more and more about the validity of the "theory" label as regards Darwinism and Evolution.

I've recently listened to an "In Our Time" podcast from BBC Radio 4 on Newton's Laws of Motion.

The point is that Newton's Laws are taken as axiomatic and self-evident after which everything else follows, subject to testing, including putting a man on the Moon. Nevertheless, I'm sure that there was vigorous debate within Newtonian mechanics in earlier days about what was the most valid way to do the sums when you were building an aeroplane. (I don't think I need to introduce Einstein's subsequent advances into this particular argument.)

Whatever the debate about specifics like punctuated equilibrium, or selection at the group level, or even the nature of the first replicator, surely it's not unreasonable to talk about "Darwin's Law of Evolution"? Group selection, for example, is just one theory regarding the "How", isn't it? Albeit not a well-supported one, on the basis of mathematical testing.

A natural Law simply says something like, "In these circumstances, this is what happens at the highest conceptual level." As in "Apples fall, (masses attract one another).", or "Things don't move unless something moves them.", or "Given some variation in high-fidelity replication processes, the results best-suited to a constraining and potentially lethal environment will prosper at the expense of those less well-suited."

Isn't it time to start talking about "Darwin's Law of Inherited Adaptation", or "Darwin's Law of Evolution", or something similar?

Senate Majority Leader Dan Webster, R-Winter Garden, said the theory of evolution "had flaws."

Answer: "No it doesn't! Darwin's Law of Evolution has no more flaws that Newton's Laws of Motion. There are some competing theories about the "how" of some aspects of the process of evolution, and they do not include magic, God, ID and Creationism."

Other Comments by IanG

31. Comment #162220 by shad0w on April 16, 2008 at 11:36 am

It's astonishing the extend to which some U.S lawmakers will go to completely destroy their country's own future.

Don't they realize that if their kids don't have a good education the U.S will become a 3rd world country eventually ?

How can they hope to compete in 2-3 generations from now if the younger generations are completely uneducated in science and math? SCIENCE and the application of SCIENCE is what made America the powerhouse it is today. If they loose that they loose everything!!! It really is amazing that people cannot see that. Sad state of affairs we're in.

Other Comments by shad0w

32. Comment #162224 by epeeist on April 16, 2008 at 11:47 am

Comment #162189 by Bigorra

While I am grateful for the work Harold Kroto is doing, some are only going to be swayed by hearing that he's a Nobel laureate, not because he can intelligently explain why there should be no debate in Florida or anywhere else.

I am with "tree with roots" (great moniker). Harry Kroto is one of the great communicators. I heard him a few years back talking about the discovery of buckyballs.

Really nice guy too, he came across to chat with my two daughters who were the youngest people in the room.

Other Comments by epeeist

33. Comment #162230 by Alkal on April 16, 2008 at 12:08 pm

"You may not like it, but it is not my fault"... is the best thing I have ever heard.. I am so going to use it.

Other Comments by Alkal

34. Comment #162231 by ericv00 on April 16, 2008 at 12:10 pm

black wolf,
"I still don't really get it. I do understand that this change is another attempt to wedge creationIDsim into science classrooms, but how can it do that? The legislation clearly speaks of scientific information, which ID and creationism are not."

Look closely at the proposed legislation.

"allow teachers to 'present scientific information relevant to the FULL RANGE OF VIEWS on biological and chemical evolution.'"

"full range of views" essentially means opinion. Kent Hovinds "views" on the formation of the polar ice caps is an "ice comet" that broke in two, each piece landing on the opposite ends of the Earth. He even uses VERY faulty scientific principles to give his ideas the slightest air of plausibility (though he fails miserably). But is that appropriate in science class? No. The legislation opens the science curriculum to this kind of nonsense. The creationists are using much more devious methods to undermine science, rather than attack it head on and push creationism directly.

Other Comments by ericv00

35. Comment #162234 by black wolf on April 16, 2008 at 12:17 pm

Thanks ericv00, I get it now. They are saying that as long as the teacher thinks (or dishonestly asserts) that something is a scientific claim, he can present it as such if he wants to. Terrifying perspective.
I shall now go forth and do what all Germans do when terrified - make bratwurst and mashed potatoes to distract my brain.
Later! ;)

Other Comments by black wolf

36. Comment #162235 by padster1976 on April 16, 2008 at 12:17 pm

To Val -

The yanks probably turn up to watch the pretty light show and thinks it's magic.

Either that or they represent the enlightened population of florida. So that would be seriously in the minority!

Other Comments by padster1976

37. Comment #162248 by Vaal on April 16, 2008 at 12:38 pm

And his qualifications are .....???

I shall be waiting with interest to see the Senator's peer reviewed scientific articles showing the "flaws".

Other Comments by Vaal

38. Comment #162250 by Vaal on April 16, 2008 at 12:42 pm

36. Comment #162235 by padster1976

Of course, they have Disneyland in Florida as well? I rest my case. :-)

Other Comments by Vaal

39. Comment #162252 by discipline on April 16, 2008 at 12:44 pm

Recent interview/podcast with Kroto:

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/sir_harold_kroto_science_education_and_freethinking/

Great to see somebody battling the forces of ignorance in the trenches... especially in a god-awful place like Florida.

Other Comments by discipline

40. Comment #162254 by Teratornis on April 16, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Comment #162177 by akado:

This kind of thing just gets my blood boiling!

Anger is not a productive emotion for countering unreason. Instead, the critical thinker should cultivate sangfroid - imperturbability under great strain.

Anger is a productive emotion for countering cave bears and other Pleistocene-era threats. In a debate over ideas, anger will reduce your ability to think clearly, and thus it is exactly the wrong emotion to have.

I was annoyed while reading a book recently that because I wasn't taught about evolution very well I couldn';t fully grasp what it was saying!

That's why paper sucks. A paper book is flat text; it has no hyperlinks on its jargon terms, so you can't simply click on the words you don't know to see their definitions.

I don't understand the masochism inherent in reading paper books. I guess some people like to work harder than necessary to understand less than they could of an author's intent.

Anyone who really wants to be understandable to the largest potential audience will write on a wiki.

I looked up injfo and found out but the point was that they withheld my education for their own beliefs against what I would have wanted and it caused an ignorance in me they just made me angry with them all!

Even though in this case someone probably did try to deprive you of specific knowledge for ideological reasons, the vast scope of human knowledge is far too large for any amount of schooling to adequately cover. Thus schooling is at best just a superficial introduction. Almost anyone with specialized interests will have to get specialized training, and/or learn to self-educate. The most important lesson schools can teach is probably how to look things up. Since you were able to do that in this case, perhaps your schooling was adequate in that regard. Or perhaps you taught yourself how to look things up.

If you go on to do original work, there probably won't be anyone to teach you exactly what to do. Originality in science and technology depends on the ability to look many disparate sources of information, integrate them together in ways that nobody previously thought to do, and if necessary add new information from field observation or experimentation.

Since most people will never do much that is original, early schooling does not focus on the supporting skills. For that one must go to university, or figure it out on one's own. A lot of what goes into original thinking probably is not teachable - that is, a few people can just do it, most people can't, and nobody fully understands why.

Original thinkers probably do tend to feel impatient with the limitations of most people around them, I'd suppose. An original thinker may tend to feel surrounded by huge numbers of people who can't seem to grasp the obvious.

I should add that an original thinker whose thinking is not properly constrained by reality is a crank. If you are an original thinker, most people will think you are merely a crank until you "deliver the goods," i.e., build something useful that actually works.

something that was just.................ugh!
I can't stand it when people hold back teachings such as evolution or try to rule it out as just "theory".
I am getting sick of it!

When I become a fully acredited physicist I am going to try as much as I can to follow dawkins and fight back against religion and it's mental abuse on the worlds minds!

Prof. Dawkins is an excellent example to follow. But our opponent - unreason - is powerful and well-entrenched.

If it were only a matter of being right, science would have won the argument centuries ago. The idea of God doesn't go away quietly, because for many people there are powerful social and emotional reinforcers. The only way we are likely to "win" is not merely by being right, but by really understanding what motivates people to ignore reality.

I.e., we will never never transform our opponents into allies as long as they continue to amaze us.

Other Comments by Teratornis

41. Comment #162257 by Bonzai on April 16, 2008 at 12:55 pm

Oh, no, not again. The man needs to get laid.

Other Comments by Bonzai

42. Comment #162260 by D'Arcy on April 16, 2008 at 1:02 pm

How depressing in the 21st century that we still have these ignoramuses in positions of power where they can influence education.

Well, they will have to take on not just Darwin's Law of evolution, (good point IanG), but also astronomy, geology, cosmology, physics, chemistry and mathematics (pi = 3), among all the other ...ologies, whose research points to a very old Earth and older Sun and older universe. I wonder how people like sponsor Ronda Storms can explain how light from our near neighbour galaxy Andromeda, approx 2.5 million light years away, can reach us now if the universe is only 6004 years old.

Teach the controversy, God speeded up the light so it could get to us now!

Oh for John Frum's sake, what nonsense.

Help me Ronda ,

Help, help me Ronda.

Other Comments by D'Arcy

43. Comment #162262 by Steve Zara on April 16, 2008 at 1:09 pm

Anyone who really wants to be understandable to the largest potential audience will write on a wiki.

Oh please.

Me, I think e-mail spamming is a far better way.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

44. Comment #162266 by epeeist on April 16, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Comment #162262 by Steve Zara

Me, I think e-mail spamming is a far better way.

You wouldn't own a botnet called Storm by any chance?

Other Comments by epeeist

45. Comment #162269 by Steve Zara on April 16, 2008 at 1:31 pm

Comment #162266 by epeeist

I am over 40. Hence I have no idea of these "bot-nets" of which you write.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

46. Comment #162270 by phatbat on April 16, 2008 at 1:31 pm

Having watched that discussion between RD and Lawrence Krauss, i think the image of all the Scientists appearing in one room on the side of proper science in comparison to the tiny amount of credulous scientists fighting for ID would be fantastic.

Then let the ID curmudgeons present their arguments and then just let the other side smack them down one after another and have it recorded to remind everyone how silly it all is.

That would be a great idea to end it once and for all.

Other Comments by phatbat

47. Comment #162273 by akado on April 16, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Well Teratornis my educatuional restrictions not only were low on evolution but were excluded all together because it was dominated by christian ideology.
even the public schools around here are messed up so bad that in a history book about rome has a side note stating "This is around the time when jesus was crucified and then arised after three days".
My anger stems mainly from embarassment that I live in a bible belt state totally dominated by a fictional bible over any true science book.
My anger is quite under cointrol in arguements for I have had much practice in debates where I am the one eventually being yelled at ^-^

Prof. Dawkins is an excellent example to follow. But our opponent - unreason - is powerful and well-entrenched.

If it were only a matter of being right, science would have won the argument centuries ago. The idea of God doesn't go away quietly, because for many people there are powerful social and emotional reinforcers. The only way we are likely to "win" is not merely by being right, but by really understanding what motivates people to ignore reality.

I.e., we will never never transform our opponents into allies as long as they continue to amaze us.

There are more pout there willing to listen to reason they you may know so don't be too hasty saying such things.
and most of us knwo all too well what they are like since most of us were probly religious beforehand as well(though I became an atheist at a very youthful age by deciding to actually look up the history of the bible to be a really great christian with ironicly turned me atheist XD)

Other Comments by akado

48. Comment #162275 by epeeist on April 16, 2008 at 1:41 pm

Comment #162269 by Steve Zara

I am over 40. Hence I have no idea of these "bot-nets" of which you write.

Phew, I can go on referring to anything containing the word "Kraken" to be a) something out of Greek mythology and b) a poem about the same by Tennyson then.

Memo to self: stop using telnet to get to the C & C servers and use ssh instead.

Other Comments by epeeist

49. Comment #162276 by PJG on April 16, 2008 at 1:42 pm

That would be a great idea to end it once and for all.

Dream on phatbat, dream on! :o)

Other Comments by PJG

50. Comment #162285 by Teratornis on April 16, 2008 at 1:54 pm

Comment #162205 by Vaal:

And this is from Florida, the state where Nasa has Cape Kennedy based? I thought that this would have been one of the more enlightened of the US states!

NASA is under the United States government, not the Florida state government, and in any case NASA employs only a tiny percentage of Florida residents. Of the Florida residents who work for NASA, only a fraction are scientists. The heavy media coverage of NASA creates a popular association with Florida, but this need not imply anything about Florida's popular culture.

Perhaps little of Florida's economic output hinges specifically on an accurate understanding of evolutionary theory. As important as Darwin's ideas are to science, the vast majority of ordinary people can lead productive lives without knowing anything about them. Otherwise, the U.S. would be a third-world country.

Think about your own life. Unless you specifically work in evolutionary biology, how often do you really need to know anything about it? How often do you see clear economic benefits flowing preferentially to people who do understand it?

There are some economically significant applications of evolutionary theory, but the vast majority of people can consume these indirectly, without needing to have any knowledge themselves. As long as a few specialists in key positions think correctly, everyone else can pretty much believe as they like about evolution and origins.

Speaking of NASA, it publishes lists of spin-offs (commercial applications of NASA-developed technology):

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/

I googled around for similar economic apologies for Darwinism; some stuff I found:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

A book:
The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/MINEVO.html

PZ Meyers reviewed the book here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/the_evolving_world.php

Without actually reading the book, I don't get the idea from the reviews that it "tears the cover off the ball" (if I may use a baseball idiom for striking a powerful blow) insofar as showing evolutionary theory to be all that critical to modern economies. (How many applied evolutionist billionaires can we name?) However, that could certainly change in the future. Number theory was for centuries a field of "pure" (i.e., useless) mathematics, and then along came computers and encryption.

Other Comments by Teratornis